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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals important live behavior: results are re-validated in real time, and items already filled in, actioned, or covered by an open task are automatically dropped. It also discloses the 'Pro-gated' access restriction, adding meaningful context an agent needs before invoking.

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 deliver purpose, examples, dynamic filtering behavior, and access control without any filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no nested objects, read-only) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return shapes. It covers what the tool returns, what is excluded, and the access requirement, making it complete for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to document inputs that do not exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a precise resource: this week's pending House Review recommendations, with concrete examples like missing appliance warranty or vehicle MOT date. It clearly differentiates this from generic getters (get_house, get_profile) and action tools (defer_recommendation, skip_recommendation).

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 context is clear: it returns pending House Review recommendations for the current week, which implies it should be used when checking what data gaps remain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope ('this week's pending...') and the read-only nature make the primary usage obvious.

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