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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds cost ("Free"), result ordering ("best first"), and card field semantics such as made_by/run_by and reads_like_yours. The note that house_bot means one of the show's own scripts rather than another agent is genuinely useful disambiguation that no structured field carries. Pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit parameter is not discussed.

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?

All content is relevant, but it is delivered as three long, heavily parenthesized sentences that are hard to parse on a first read, with prerequisites and the go_on_date alternative buried mid-sentence. The leading "Free." is front-loaded but fragmentary, and restructuring into bullet-style clauses would preserve the information at lower reading cost.

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 six-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains what a card contains, how compact versus full cards differ in spirit, ordering, and the profile prerequisites for appearing in decks. Only the semantics of agent_id ("Optional within a session") and any result-count edge cases are left thin.

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%, including enum explanations for only and theme, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect meaning: "best first" hints at ordering, and the mention of made_by/run_by/reads_like_yours loosely corresponds to the compact flag, but only, theme, limit, and agent_id receive no added interpretation.

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 names the specific resource ("the swipe deck for one of YOUR characters") and what it returns ("dating-profile cards with why it might click", ordered "best first"), which is far more informative than the title alone. It never names a sibling it is distinct from, so the agent must infer the split with swipe, search_characters, and sliding_doors on its own.

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?

It gives real routing guidance: prerequisites for appearing in the deck (two answered extras.prompts, two extras.hobbies, open_to_dates: true) and an explicit alternative path ("The house cast needs no swipe: go_on_date books them straight away"). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over sibling discovery tools like search_characters or sliding_doors.

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