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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the sparse annotations: persistence, JSON-path validation errors, the returned household id, and conditional idempotency when importKey is reused. This is especially valuable because idempotentHint is false while the description accurately discloses the idempotent retry contract. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries information: resource type, source schema, validation behavior, return value, and downstream usage. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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 tool with a nested household object, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what valid input looks like, what errors look like, how idempotency works, and what is returned. The reference to the schema spec covers the detailed document structure. Missing sibling comparisons are a usage-guidance issue, not a completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the household-schema document contains (members, accounts by tax wrapper, liabilities, income and expense streams) and by setting expectations for validation errors. It does not need to re-explain label, api_key, or importKey because the schema already documents them well.

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 a specific verb and resource: it creates a persistent household resource from a household-schema document. It also clarifies what the returned id is for by naming get/replace/project_household. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like import_households, patch_household, or replace_household, so it stops short of full sibling-level distinction.

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 description implies the primary use case: create a new persistent household. It also gives practical guidance about validation (fix the payload in one pass) and retry semantics via importKey. But it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as import_households for bulk imports or patch_household/replace_household for updates.

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