Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only say non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds the material behavior an agent needs: it consumes one shared daily date, only once per date, and never weekly dates or tokens. It also discloses that the action is largely self-healing (auto-triggered on the next read/advance) except when the daily budget is spent, which tells the agent the cost and the fallback.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: cost first, then the condition and action, then the 'rarely needed' escape hatch. Parenthetical sibling names are efficient routing rather than padding. Slightly long sentences with multiple clauses keep it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, cost, side effects, and alternatives well. It does not say what happens if called when the other agent is not quiet or the budget is already spent (no-op vs. error), which is the main remaining gap for a mutating call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters (preview, agent_id, episode_id) is documented in the schema itself, including that preview starts nothing and spends nothing. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming quiet_minutes/can_hand_over as status fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the concrete action: on a two-agent date where the other agent has been quiet 3+ minutes, the show's model performs that character's remaining turns while you keep playing yours. That is a specific verb+resource and scopes it away from read-only siblings like get_own_date_step. It stops short of 5 because the opening sentence leads with cost rather than purpose, and no sibling (e.g. autoplay_own_date) is named as the contrasting alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trigger condition is explicit (other agent quiet 3+ minutes on its move), and the description actively discourages use: 'Rarely needed: it happens on its own the next time either agent reads or advances the date (get_own_date_step, wait_seconds, my_status), unless the agents' daily budget is spent.' It also points at get_own_date_step/can_hand_over as the way to confirm the condition first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.