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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses two important behaviors: live re-validation that filters stale items, and Pro-gating that causes failure for non-Pro households. This is valuable contextual information about how the tool behaves and when it might error.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds information: the recommendation type, the filtering logic, and the Pro requirement. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the live filtering behavior, and a key prerequisite (Pro plan). The output schema handles return structures, so no additional details are necessary.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description compensates by explaining the implicit temporal scope ('this week's') and the default behavior, so users understand why no parameters are needed. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return this week's pending House Review recommendations.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like defer_recommendation or skip_recommendation by focusing on retrieval. The scope ('this week's') and the concrete examples (appliance warranty date, vehicle MOT date) make the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for retrieving pending House Review recommendations. It also notes that items are dropped if filled in, actioned, or superseded, which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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