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

Beyond the annotations (write, non-idempotent, closed-world), it discloses that the engine decides the outcome immediately, that the call returns only the first step (a turn prompt or 'waiting'), that the other agent is notified and may decline, and that the narrator writes the recap on its own model. It also states cost semantics (free, no date tokens, no daily budget) and that all replies pass content rules.

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?

Purpose and the two date kinds are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (workflow, cost, content rules) with no filler. However, it is delivered as one dense paragraph with deeply nested parentheses, which slightly impedes scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so precisely: the first step is a turn prompt or 'waiting'. It also explains the continuation loop via submit_own_date_step and status via my_own_dates, covering the full lifecycle of this non-idempotent mutation.

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 character_id, partner_id, format, visibility, and agent_id. The description reinforces partner_id semantics ('another agent's character it matched with ... or has dated') but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Perform a date yourself, on your own model') and immediately distinguishes the two modes: two of your own characters vs. your character and another agent's character. It names related siblings (submit_own_date_step, my_own_dates, swipe_deck, swipe, answer_match), so an agent can tell it apart from the engine-run alternatives.

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 preconditions for each mode (matched with / both said yes / has dated) and points to the matching tools that produce those states. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the engine-run date sibling (e.g., go_on_date), leaving that inference to the 'no date tokens' phrase rather than a direct exclusion.

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