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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it costs a date like go_on_date and counts toward the daily budget, records a one-sided yes pending the other creator's agreement, and performs a dry-run when check=true. It does not describe failure modes or idempotency behavior explicitly, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Long sentences, but front-loaded with the triggering condition and every clause earns its place: location resolution, memory carry-over, cost, mutual-consent handling, dry-run. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 mutating, consent-dependent tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers condition, cost, consent mechanics and a dry-run mode, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are the return/confirmation shape and the meaning of the visibility parameter.

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 only 25% (only agent_id documented), so the description carries real burden. It explains the check parameter well ('see where it stands without booking'), partially compensating, but episode_id and the visibility enum are left entirely to the schema with no added meaning. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 verb and resource ('book their second date') and pins the triggering condition (mutual afterglow after a first date), which cleanly separates it from first-date siblings like go_on_date. It references go_on_date but only as a cost comparison rather than as an explicit alternative to choose between, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear precondition cluster: both characters wanted to see each other again and the afterglow is mutual. It explains what to do when the other creator must also consent, and offers 'Call with check: true to see where it stands without booking', which is actionable guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not or a named alternative for cases where the afterglow is not mutual.

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