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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is append-only, newest first, metadata-only, and includes specific fields. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a read-only list tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences pack in scope, ordering, field list, metadata-only caveat, sibling routing, and endpoint mapping. There is no filler and the most important behavioral facts come first.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the return fields, the sort order, the append-only nature, and the alternative for full records. Combined with simple parameters and strong read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 id and api_key are already documented. The description adds only mild context by showing id in the endpoint path ('households/{id}/decisions') and implying the household must already be stored. This is useful but does not materially extend the schema.

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 lists a specific resource ('history of coordination strategies run on a stored household') and a clear operation ('newest first' listing), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from get_decision by noting it returns metadata only. This is more than the title alone and clearly differentiates from the closest sibling.

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 gives concrete guidance: use this for the append-only metadata history, and use get_decision when a full record is needed. It also maps the tool to a canonical REST endpoint, making the access pattern unambiguous. This is explicit enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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