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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful scope context beyond that: 'figures only, with no analysis, fees or advice' tells the agent not to expect computed insight. It does not address pagination, auth, or the empty/omitted household_id case.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the payload and its limits, the second handles routing. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant content (what data, what it excludes) is front-loaded.

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 the description needn't explain return shapes, and it correctly focuses on scope and routing instead. The only real gap is the optional household_id's default behavior, which is unaddressed in both description and schema. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations, that is a minor omission.

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% for the single household_id parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not mention the parameter at all. It never explains what happens when household_id is null (the default), which is the key semantic for an optional parameter. The description is entirely about output content, leaving the input contract unexplained.

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 states the concrete payload — account names, types, currencies and next-income totals — which is more specific than a restatement of the title. It also explicitly carves out a boundary against get_household_answers, so an agent can separate the two. It stops just short of a crisp verb+scope framing ('get the raw snapshot for a household').

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 a positive trigger ('when the user asks for this detail') and an explicit alternative for the adjacent case ('a budget question or an overview is answered by get_household_answers'). The routing decision is fully spelled out with no inference required.

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