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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'open' filter, which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits like pagination or return format, so it adds only marginal context beyond the structured data.

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 a single, tight sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter.

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 tool with an optional filter parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' means, whether the result is a list, or how household_id affects the output. The output schema may help, but the description alone leaves critical usage details unspecified.

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%, and the description does not mention household_id at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory as an identifier, the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema definition, failing to explain its purpose or optionality.

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 that the tool returns open compliance/policy breaches, which is a specific resource and aligns with the 'get' verb implied by the name. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_risk or get_unread_alerts because it targets breaches specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings include many getters with overlapping domains (e.g., get_risk, get_unread_alerts), and the description gives no criteria for selection or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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