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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The one piece of added context is the default filtering behavior (active only), which is genuinely useful, but there is no mention of ordering, volume, or whether inactive routines are retrievable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with zero filler. The only waste is the trailing 'Read-only.', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding information.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, the default filter, and the safety profile. Remaining gaps (ordering, pagination, meaning of active=false) are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% for the single `active` parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does explain the default (active routines only), but never states what `active: false` returns — all routines including inactive, or something else — leaving the non-default branch ambiguous.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List recurring routines') and disambiguates the domain term with '(chores/decisions)', so an agent knows this returns recurring items rather than one-off tasks or decisions. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like list_decisions or list_decision_prompts, but the 'recurring' qualifier does most of that work.

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?

The line 'Defaults to active routines only' implies when the default call is appropriate and hints that the parameter exists to widen scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative for retrieving inactive or archived routines. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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