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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the name field may be renamed by the household (when isDefaultName is false) and that a keyboard shortcut is included, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the data semantics.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the core function and fields, the second provides downstream usage. It is efficient and without wasted words, though the first sentence is somewhat long and could be split, but remains clear and appropriately scoped.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list operation with no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return fields, notes the six built-in colors, and explains how to use the results in other tools. No pagination or error handling is needed for a fixed set of flags, so the description is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results.

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 only parameter, householdId, is fully documented in the input schema with details about its format and usage (calling list_households, optionality). The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the schema already covers 100% of the semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists household colour flags, enumerates the six built-in colors, and specifies the exact fields returned (id, systemKey, name, colour, keyboard shortcut). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only flag-listing operation, and the downstream usage reference reinforces its purpose.

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 explicitly explains how to use the returned ids with list_transactions and update_transaction, including the alternative flag: parameter for update_transaction. This provides clear context for when to use this tool and how its output feeds other operations, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives because there are none.

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