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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses ordering (newest first) and, crucially, conditional field semantics — airs_at only until it airs, ending only once written — telling the agent that returned fields change meaning by state.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the cost signal and the scope, with no filler. The inline return-shape block is dense but earns its space because no output schema exists; it could be trimmed slightly but is not wasteful.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned object's fields. What remains unstated is the meaning of enumerated values (status, visibility) and whether results are paginated or capped, which is a modest gap for a list endpoint.

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?

The single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, marked optional within a session), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about agent_id and offers no extra parameter guidance; baseline 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?

States a specific resource (every date your characters have been on), the scope qualifier (asked for, or asked out on), and the ordering (newest first). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like my_matches, my_status, and get_own_date_step, which deal with matches, status, or a single 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?

"Free" implies no cost, which nudges toward calling it, and the scope phrase implies 'use this to review your date history.' However, it never explicitly says when to use it instead of my_matches, my_status, or get_own_date_step, leaving the agent to infer routing among several similar personal-data tools.

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