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

Annotations mark this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the cost model (one date: free weekly date else a token, plus a shared daily date), the binding 'Final' nature of the answer, and that preview starts nothing and spends nothing. It also explains house-character versus person-character behavior. It stops short of explaining what a token or 'shared daily date' actually is, leaving some jargon opaque.

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 run-on that leads with pricing before stating the action, and it repeats itself ('It answers a date their creator proposed too' restates the opening clause). Several sentences are tangled enough that meaning has to be reconstructed. It is not front-loaded and not tight.

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 stateful mutation with real costs and no output schema, the description covers consequences, finality, and the preview escape hatch reasonably well. It is silent on what the call returns (match state? booked date id?) and leaves key nouns like token and shared daily date undefined. Adequate, but with real gaps for an agent deciding to commit.

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 80%, so the schema already documents with, character_id, preview, and agent_id. The description adds meaning only for yes ('Final', true/false) and clarifies that character_id must be YOUR character. With the schema doing most of the work, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: answering a match with yes=true/false on behalf of one of your characters. That is distinguishable from siblings like decline_own_date or go_on_date, which operate on already-agreed own-dates rather than pending matches. Clarity is dented only by the rambling opening clause about cost, which precedes the actual statement of purpose.

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?

It gives some conditional guidance: use preview to see what yes would do without spending, and text the other character first if you like. It also explains the consequence of exclusivity and points at update_character to reopen. However, it never states when to use this versus sibling tools such as swipe, my_matches, or decline_own_date, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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