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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=trueestrategies. The description adds that unanswered parameters are reported as questions to ask, and no account is needed. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the safety hint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and consequence-ranking, then usage contextholidays. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 6 boolean params all described in schema. Description explains partial input handling and output indication. Siblings are clearly distinct. It's complete enough for a read-only assessment tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds that known answers can be passed partially and unanswered ones become questions, which explains the optionality and behavior beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Score how prepared someone is for end-of-life planning and rank what is missing by consequence.' This is a specific verb (score, rank) with a defined resource (estate planning gaps). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_state_document_requirements' (which is about state-specific requirements) and 'get_after_loss_first_steps' (which is about next steps after loss), whereas this tool is about assessment and gap analysis.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when someone wants to know where they stand, what to do first, or whether their planning has holes.' This gives clear context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, so it's not a 5.

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