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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and openWorldHint false, so safety and closed scope are known. The description adds 'No account needed' (auth requirement) and explains the output organization, going beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences: first states the tool's purpose and organizational structure, second gives usage guidance and the 'no account' note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and auth. It lists the phase categories and implies the checklist contents (practical items). Slightly more detail on return format might be helpful, but overall 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 covers 100% of parameters, describing the phase enum and its behavior (omit for all, pass one to focus). The description adds context about the phases but does not further clarify parameter syntax or values beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a practical checklist for after a death, organized by time phases (24-48 hours, week, month, ongoing). This verb-resource scope (get checklist) distinctively differs from sibling tools like assess_estate_planning_gaps or find_state_document_requirements.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when someone has recently lost a person and asks what to do, what comes first, or what might be forgotten. It does not name alternatives but the sibling tool names suggest different purposes; clear usage context but no exclusionary guidance.

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