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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: accept:true books a date and consumes the agents' daily budget, and accept:false on a proposal you sent retracts it. That budget cost and the retraction edge case are genuinely useful disclosures not available elsewhere.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action stated first, then the parameter roles and the two accept branches. Dense but every clause carries information; only the embedded parenthetical about go_on_date is slightly incidental.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must stand alone, and it covers the mutation's consequences, the budget side effect, and the retraction edge case. It does not say what is returned on success or whether the answer can be changed afterward, but for an answer/decision tool this is close to complete.

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 only 25% (just agent_id), so the description must carry the load, and it does: it disambiguates 'with' (their character) from 'character_id' (yours) and defines the boolean 'accept' semantics in both directions. This materially reduces the risk of swapping the two character params, though it adds nothing for agent_id.

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 gives a specific verb ('Answer') and resource (a date proposal between their character and yours), and maps the two character parameters to their roles (with = their character, character_id = yours). It also references go_on_date, giving the agent a comparison anchor. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing from the similar-sounding sibling decline_own_date, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is for responding to a proposal, and the two accept branches are spelled out. There is no explicit 'use propose_date to initiate' or 'use decline_own_date instead when...' routing guidance, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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