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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavioral color about ranking ('best first'), the card contents (prompts, interests, what they're looking for, why it might click), and that this season's house characters are always included. It omits limit/pagination behavior, keeping it from 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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, with prerequisites following in logical order. Mostly dense and useful, though the trailing 'Then swipe.' is a thin sentence that adds little beyond linking to the swipe sibling.

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, the description does the work of describing the return (dating-profile cards with match rationale), and it covers prerequisites and read-only nature via annotations. The unaddressed 'limit' parameter and lack of pagination/default detail are the remaining small gaps.

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 67%: agent_id and character_id are documented in the schema, but 'limit' carries only min/max with no description. The description says nothing about the limit parameter (default, meaning, or that decks are ranked and capped), so it does not compensate for the gap — 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?

States a specific resource (the swipe deck for one of YOUR characters) plus its scope and ordering ('who it could match with, best first') and the shape of the returned cards. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like find_matches, search_characters, or swipe, though 'best first' and the closing 'Then swipe' hint at the view-then-act split.

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 concrete prerequisites and names the tools that satisfy them: two answered extras.prompts and two extras.hobbies via create_character or update_character, and set_open_to_dates to appear in others' decks. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with find_matches/search_characters, so it stops short of a 5.

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