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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only the multi-day scoping behavior beyond what annotations provide; it does not disclose how households are aggregated, what the overview contains, or any limits on results. With the safety burden carried by annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that directly states the invocation conditions. It is efficient but slightly redundant—'this week', 'the next week', and 'family schedule for the week' overlap, and 'upcoming days' plus 'multi-day planning overview' cover similar ground.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with a rich output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the key selection criteria an agent needs. It is complete enough to route the agent correctly among 24 siblings; the only minor gap is that it does not clarify what an 'overview' contains or how it differs from familia_get_next_up or familia_find_free_days.

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 100%, with all four parameters individually documented in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already states—it does not explain defaults, formats, or the householdId omission behavior.

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 conveys that this tool provides a multi-day family schedule overview, and the temporal scope ('this week, the next week, upcoming days, multi-day') distinguishes it from day-level siblings like familia_get_today_schedule and familia_get_day_overview. However, it is phrased as a usage trigger ('Use this when...') rather than a direct verb+resource statement, and it never names the sibling alternatives it contrasts with.

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 entire description is an explicit when-to-use statement, listing concrete user intents ('this week', 'next week', 'upcoming days', 'multi-day planning overview'). This gives clear routing context relative to the day-specific siblings. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools by name.

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