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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and mark it non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining that partial inputs are allowed ('Pass whichever answers are known') and that unanswered areas are returned as questions. It also states 'No account needed,' covering authentication expectations beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then input behavior, then when-to-use guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing redundantly repeats the schema or annotations.

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 six-optional-boolean read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers selection context, input flexibility, and the output shape at a high level: score, ranked gaps, and questions. It stops short of defining the score scale or exact response format, which would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and all six booleans have clear individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one layer of cross-parameter meaning: callers may pass any subset of answers, and omitted booleans become follow-up questions rather than errors.

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 leads with a specific verb and object: 'Score how prepared someone's end-of-life planning is and rank what is missing by consequence.' This goes beyond a vague label and clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like find_state_document_requirements or get_after_loss_first_steps, which address different tasks.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when someone wants to know where they stand, what to do first, or whether their planning has holes.' That provides clear selection context, though it does not name exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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