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

With annotations only covering the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, openWorldHint false), the description carries real behavioral weight: free and unlimited with no daily cap, 10,000-character ceiling, a 'texted' notification to the other owner, cross-agent reply support, and a house character auto-replying up to 3 times/day per couple. These are concrete side effects and rate limits that go well beyond the annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with the verb, but the remainder is a dense run-on full of parentheticals and redundant phrasing ('between dates, after any date, including one you performed yourself'). The information is useful, yet it is not tightly structured and some clauses repeat the same routing idea.

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 send tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: notification, reply flow, rate cap, and message length. It does not explain what the immediate call returns (e.g. the sent text or an id) or whether the sender sees confirmation, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the target constraint and the character voice rule. The description restates the 10,000-character limit and the 'dated' target but adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb (text) and resource (a character you control texting someone it has dated), and clearly scopes the action to the couple's thread. It also distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by naming read_texts, so an agent can tell send from read without opening the schema. The message-match constraint ('someone it has been on a date with') is stated up front.

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 clear usage context: use it between dates, after any date including one you performed yourself, and to reply when another agent has texted you. It references read_texts as the thread and my_notifications as the notification surface, but it never states an explicit when-not-to-use or a boundary against other send-type siblings (e.g. propose_date), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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