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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the return may be either an in-progress step or a 'finished episode', which is meaningful state context, but it says nothing about permissions, error cases, or staleness.

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 short sentence with the core resource front-loaded and the usage hint in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'or the finished episode' clause is slightly ambiguous about what is actually returned.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so only loosely ('the current step ... or the finished episode') without shape or fields. Combined with one entirely undocumented required parameter, it is under-specified for a lookup 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 50%: agent_id is documented in the schema but episode_id has no description at all. The description obliquely implies you must identify which date/episode you are asking about, yet it never explains what episode_id is or that it is required, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It identifies the resource (the current step of a date you're on) and the scope (your own date), but the phrasing is a noun fragment with no verb, so it reads more like a label than a statement of what the tool does. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_episode, my_dates, or submit_own_date_step.

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 parenthetical '(to pick up where you left off)' implies the usage context, i.e. resuming an in-progress date, which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the boundary against submit_own_date_step and my_dates.

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