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 genuinely non-structured context: output is anonymized to roles (Principal, Spouse, Child A) and never names, which tells the agent what identity detail it will and will not get back. It stops short of noting whether a household with no plan yields an error or an empty band.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, followed by the anonymization caveat. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 shape needn't be spelled out, and the description still sketches the key return concepts plus the role-anonymization rule. The only material gap is the household_id parameter and its default/optional behavior.

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 single parameter household_id is documented nowhere — the description never mentions it, its default, or what happens when it is omitted (required count is 0). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('how ready the household's succession plan is') and enumerates the payload: readiness band, material gaps, and remediation needs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_succession_checklist, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can guess this is the summary-read for succession, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to get_succession_checklist. The 'Read only' note is a safety remark, not a selection guideline.

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