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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive profile, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that by defining what counts as 'in progress' (started by you, or two-agent dates you were invited to) and noting the result includes whose move it is. It omits pagination/ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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 content is packed into a tight single sentence with the resource front-loaded and the actionable next step at the end. The phrasing 'the two-agent dates other agents invited your characters to' is slightly dense but earns its place by defining scope.

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?

For a read-only list with no output schema, the description supplies the inclusion criteria and the key returned signal (whose move it is), which is enough to invoke it correctly. It could still be more complete on result ordering or what each entry contains.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents agent_id, its optionality, and its cross-connection purpose. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit session scoping in 'you're'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific resource and scope: unfinished dates your characters are in, broken into ones you started and two-agent dates others invited you to. It is far clearer than the ambiguous name/title 'my_own_dates'. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling my_dates, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 a clear follow-on action ('Use get_own_date_step to take your turn'), which routes the agent correctly among the many date-related siblings. However, it never states when to prefer this over my_dates or my_status, so the alternative-condition for the listing tools themselves is left implicit.

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