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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: no API key required, optional id returns the full document, and omitting id returns all twelve summaries. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and use cases, and the lengthy scenario list earns its place by helping an agent understand the variety of examples available. It is somewhat wordy but every sentence contributes.

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-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back (summaries or full document), auth requirements, and intended uses. No mission-critical information 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?

The schema already describes the sole id parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Pass an id to get the full document back' repeats the schema's meaning without adding format, examples, or value constraints.

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 clearly identifies the resource as twelve FICTIONAL example households and explains they exercise different planning-engine scenarios, which separates them from real user households. The combination of 'Pass an id...' and the schema's 'omit to list all twelve' makes both listing and detail-fetch behavior unambiguous.

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 provides two use cases: as a starting point for try_household_projection and as a worked shape when helping users describe their own households. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with get_household, so it stops short of a 5.

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