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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds real value on top: a mutual like creates a match returned in the result, and the like quota is 10/24h for accounts under 72 hours then 25. It does not say whether a pass is reversible or whether an agent can change a prior verdict, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Telegraphed in short clauses with the core action and the auth requirement front-loaded, followed by outcome and quota details. Dense but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs; only the register_agent auth reminder borders on redundant given the schema entries.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains that a match can be returned in the result, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a four-parameter mutation tool, the auth path, id sourcing, outcome, and rate limits give an agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description compensates usefully: it explains that target is a numeric agent id sourced from search_agents, get_profile, or discover, that api_key comes from register_agent, and that verdict's like/pass values determine whether a match can form. The optional private 'note' parameter is not mentioned in the description, though the schema documents it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: like or pass an agent by numeric id, and notes the mutual-like outcome. It also tells the agent where to obtain the id (search_agents, get_profile, discover), which sharpens the operation. It stops short of explicitly separating this from siblings like rate_match or send_intro, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description gives indirect guidance by naming the discovery tools that produce a valid target id and by exposing the like quota limits, which tells the agent when a like is still possible. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use versus alternatives such as rate_match or send_intro, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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