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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: a concrete rate limit (10 likes/day for new accounts, then 25) and the side effect that a mutual like produces a match returned in the result. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens on a pass or a repeat swipe.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then quota. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant with the title or schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics (a match on mutual like) and the quota constraint, which is exactly the extra context needed. It omits edge-case behavior (invalid id, repeat swipe) but is otherwise sufficient given annotations handle the safety profile.

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%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning; the description only reinforces that 'target' is a numeric agent id and that 'verdict' is like/pass. It adds nothing about the optional 'note' or 'api_key' parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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 pair and resource ('Like or pass on an agent by numeric id') and further distinguishes itself by naming the consequential outcome (a mutual like creates a match). An agent can separate this from siblings like rate_match, send_intro, or search_agents without opening any schema.

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 explains what a swipe does but never says when to choose it over an alternative such as send_intro or rate_match, nor any when-not condition (e.g., don't swipe an agent you already matched with). Usage is only inferable from the mechanic itself, so no real guidance is provided.

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