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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them, disclosing the three operating modes, per-mode limits (up to 5 compared dates, up to 31-day scan), free-tier gating on ranges, and the shape of the result (score 0-100, verdict, per-layer breakdown, adverse alerts). No contradictions with the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then modes, then constraints, then alternatives — a sensible ordering with little waste. The example-domain list ('trip dates, launch days, interview/meeting days...') is longer than strictly necessary but aids intent matching, and the multilingual trigger example is a useful matching hint.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the return payload (score, verdict, per-layer breakdown, element breakdown, adverse alerts). Combined with the mode limits, tier constraints, and sibling routing, nothing material is missing for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about how the date parameters combine into modes — single date, comparison against targetDate, or range scan — and restates the 31-day range cap and free-tier window. It stops short of explaining categories or the birthInfo null convention, which the schema already covers.

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 concrete trigger and resource: 'Call when the user asks about timing a decision for a specific date, or wants to pick the best day from a multi-day window.' It is immediately separable from siblings because it names the day-granularity scope and points at `intentions_ask_month` and `intentions_ask_hour` for other granularities.

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?

Explicit routing rules: multi-month windows go to `intentions_ask_month`, hour precision to `intentions_ask_hour`. It also states the free-tier condition that selects between modes ('a range must sit inside the past week and the week ahead; single and compared dates are free anywhere'), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use decision an agent needs.

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