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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds settlement rules (they arrive, break up, or three weeks) and a once-per-question limit, which annotations cannot convey, but says nothing about the return value or what a wrong call costs.

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?

Front-loaded and information-dense, with the mechanic stated in the first clause and constraints packed efficiently. Slightly elliptical phrasing (

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 and only partial parameter documentation, the description should carry more of the load. It covers eligibility and settlement but leaves the meaning of key inputs and the payoff for a wrong call unstated, which is thin for a mutation tool with 4 parameters.

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 25% and the description does not compensate. It never explains what `with` (a 64-char string) refers to, what `character_id` identifies, or even which parameter encodes the "date N" it references.

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 action (making a call/prediction) on a specific resource (a couple's arc), framed as the concrete question "Will they make it to date N?". However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool `predict`, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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 real eligibility conditions: only for couples whose dates have aired, once per question, and never for a couple containing your own character. This is close to explicit when/when-not guidance, though it names no alternative tool for the cases it excludes.

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