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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write with no destruction; the description usefully adds that the answer is FINAL (a committed, non-reversible decision), the cross-entity consequence (mutual yes agrees the date), and the asymmetric rule that house characters always say yes while a person's character decides for itself.

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 action and its boolean payload, followed by finality, alternatives, and the outcome. Five short sentences, each earning its place; the phrasing 'does it want a date with them?' is slightly ambiguous about whose preference is being answered, costing a point.

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 return values need not be explained; the description instead covers finality, the mutual-yes outcome, and house-character behavior. It omits edge behavior such as what happens on a 'no' answer or if the other party already declined, which matters for a committing write tool.

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% (character_id, with, agent_id documented), and the description compensates for the undocumented 'yes' by spelling out that it is the true/false answer about wanting a date. It also reinforces the ownership semantics of character_id ('as one of YOUR characters'), though it doesn't clarify the 'with' matching semantics further.

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 a yes/no decision on whether your character wants a date, plus the boolean parameter semantics ('yes: true or false'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling answer_date_proposal, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 clear flow context: text first via send_text/read_texts if desired, the decision is final, and when both sides say yes the date is agreed and can be booked. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion versus answer_date_proposal is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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