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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing ordering ('newest first') and the returned fields ('status and ending'), though it says nothing about pagination or result caps.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no wasted clauses. Every element (scope, ordering, returned fields) earns its place.

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 the description appropriately names the key returned fields (status, ending) and the ordering. For a simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, this is nearly complete; only volume/pagination behavior is unstated.

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 100% and the single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its optional-within-session behavior. The description adds no parameter detail, so 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 (dates for your characters) with explicit scope ('every date your characters have been on (asked for, or asked out on)') and ordering (newest first). An agent can distinguish this from my_characters, get_own_date_step, or reflect_on_date without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the possessive 'my_dates' framing and the enumerated scope, but the description never states when to use this versus sibling tools like get_own_date_step, reflect_on_date, or my_status, nor any prerequisites.

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