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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context ('Calendar events are excluded') beyond the annotations, but it doesn't disclose return shape, sorting, or edge cases; the output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence covers the core use case, gives a useful synonym list, and states an exclusion. Every part earns its place; there is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, fully documented optional parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete for invocation purposes. It clearly defines scope and exclusions; a minor gap is not naming sibling tools for alternative routing, but that is not essential for this tool's usage.

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%, so all three parameters (limit, timezone, householdId) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific trigger pattern ('overdue items, past leftovers, missed tasks, unfinished items from previous days') tied to a clear resource, and notes that calendar events are excluded. It distinguishes the tool's scope from schedule-oriented siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with concrete user-phrase examples and adds an exclusion for calendar events. It doesn't mention specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the trigger list is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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