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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the list includes both incoming and outgoing offers and that offers expire within two minutes. This is useful additional context for an agent deciding whether to act on the data.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core meaning (what the tool returns) and appends the deadline context. No filler or repetition, and it reads naturally. It earns its place entirely.

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 simple parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent needs: it will see pending kisses in both directions and is reminded of the time limit. There are no filters, pagination, or other options to describe. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. Per calibration, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and adds no parameter-related details, but that is not a deficiency.

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 clearly states the resource ('kisses') and the two categories it covers: offers received and offers made. It is unambiguous that this is a read/list operation, distinguishing it from action siblings like accept_kiss, decline_kiss, and offer_kiss.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the contrast with action-oriented siblings is implicit. It implies a viewing purpose but lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this to list pending kisses before accepting or declining' or 'prefer this over accept_kiss when you need an overview.' The two-minute deadline is mentioned but not tied to a specific action flow.

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