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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the trailing 'Read only.' largely restates it. The description does add genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the status vocabulary (confirmed, open, not relevant) and the explicit exclusion 'Notes are never returned', which prevents the agent from promising note content. It stops short of anything on permissions or scoping behavior for the optional household_id.

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 compact sentences front-load the returned fields, and the 'notes are never returned' caveat follows immediately. The trailing 'Read only.' is redundant with readOnlyHint=true and is the only wasted clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, and the description generously previews the item fields anyway. However, for a tool whose only input determines which household's checklist is fetched, the absence of any explanation of household_id's default/empty semantics is a real gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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?

There is one parameter, household_id, at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. Whether an empty default means 'the current/default household' is left entirely unexplained, so the description adds no meaning over the bare schema. With a parameter present, this falls below the 0-param baseline of 4.

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 names the specific resource (the household's Legacy/succession checklist) and enumerates what each item contains: group and status (confirmed/open/not relevant) plus confirmation date. This is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling get_succession_readiness, leaving the checklist-vs-readiness distinction for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_succession_readiness, get_brief, or get_today_brief, which sit in the same succession/overview space. Usage is only implied by the resource name; no preconditions, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.

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