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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/mutation profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the four possible return statuses and the form-vs-values flow, but it never explains why the tool is flagged destructive - what existing answers may be overwritten - which is the one behavioral gap the annotation leaves open.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the remainder is dense with backticked jargon ('Bazous', 'keyed like fields') and internal references that slow comprehension. Information earns its place, but the prose is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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, yet the description still explains the `status` values, which is helpful. For a destructive mutation tool with two undocumented parameters (`language`, `household_id`) and no sibling differentiation, the description falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: `section` is explained via the dotted-need example and `values` is described as keyed like `fields` and saved without a form. It says nothing about `language` or `household_id`, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific action chain - collect missing facts for one profile section, save them, and return updated answers - so the resource and outcome are clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling update_household_profile, leaving the agent to infer which mutation path applies.

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 implies usage by explaining how `section` is derived and when each return status occurs (e.g. 'ask_in_chat': no form here), which tells the agent what to expect. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus update_household_profile or get_household_answers, so routing guidance is only implicit.

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