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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal extra behavior (that metadata is returned alongside the document), but does not mention error cases, response shape, or authorization requirements. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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, economical sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes; there is no wasted phrasing or redundant restating 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?

For a simple read-by-id tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description sufficiently states what will be returned (the household document and its metadata). No output schema exists, so some return detail is helpful—and the description provides it, though it could mention not-found behavior or the need for an API key.

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 'id' documented as 'Household id from create_household' and 'api_key' as 'Worthune API key (wk_…)'. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('a stored household document and its metadata') and identifies the lookup key ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from mutation siblings like create_household and replace_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?

The description implies usage: you fetch a household when you have its id. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_household or run_model, nor does it mention conditions like 'after create_household'. Schema documentation partially covers this with 'Household id from create_household', but the description itself lacks explicit routing guidance.

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