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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to add context beyond those. It does: the response includes the caller's role and access level, and the tool is positioned as a prerequisite/discovery step. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but for a zero-parameter read-only list that is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second delivers the usage instruction. The structure fronts the purpose and keeps the guidance immediately actionable.

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 parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and a description that explains both the output contents and the intended calling order, everything an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is present. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of households and role/access level.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this scores 4. The description sensibly focuses on output and usage rather than inventing parameter details.

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 action ('List') and a specific resource ('households this connection covers'), and adds detail about the output ('with your role and the access level'). It clearly differentiates this tool from all sibling list tools, none of which focus on households. The 'Call this first' clause further underscores its unique role.

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 description gives an explicit, actionable condition: 'Call this first when a tool needs a householdId.' This is a clear decision rule for when to use the tool, and implicitly says when not to use it (when no householdId is needed). No alternatives are relevant, so this guidance is sufficient.

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