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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: only the other agent's remaining turns are handed over, you keep your own side, and the handover consumes one of the agents' daily dates on the show's model. It does not address reversibility or whether the date can be resumed later.

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 gating condition is front-loaded and the body is compact at roughly two sentences with no filler. The phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy ('the show's model', 'own date'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return/behavior burden and does explain the side effect (consumes a daily date) and partial scope of the handover, plus where to verify eligibility. It is thin on what happens after handover (notifications, date completion) and on the undocumented episode_id, keeping it short of 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 description coverage is only 50%: agent_id is documented in the schema but episode_id has no description anywhere. The prose references the date/episode context only obliquely and adds no meaning to either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 names a specific action (the show's model takes over the other character's remaining turns while you keep playing yours) and the precise trigger (a two-agent date where the other agent has been quiet 20+ minutes). It also distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings by naming get_own_date_step and my_own_dates as the tools that report quiet_minutes and can_hand_over.

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 states the exact condition for use (other agent quiet 20+ minutes on its move) and points the agent to get_own_date_step / my_own_dates to check quiet_minutes and can_hand_over before acting. There is no explicit 'do not use when' clause or mention of the alternative of waiting/declining, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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