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

The description meaningfully adds conflict behavior beyond the annotations: full-document replacement and stale writes failing cleanly with the current version rather than clobbering. No contradiction with the provided false readOnly/idempotent hints; it leaves out auth/rate-limit detail, but annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the operation and then explains the concurrency contract with no filler. Every clause adds useful decision-relevant information.

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 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what is replaced, where expectedVersion comes from, and what happens on conflict. It does not describe the success/error return shape, but that is not needed to select or invoke the tool correctly in most agent workflows.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates for the most important parameter (expectedVersion, sourced from get_household) while 'full-document replace' gives household meaning. It does not explain id, label, or api_key, though api_key is described in the schema; the optionality of expectedVersion in the schema is also left implicit.

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?

States a specific action ('full-document replace') on a clear resource (household), and the optimistic-concurrency qualifier sets it apart from create/partial-update siblings. The phrase 'replace' and reference to get_household make the resource and workflow 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?

Clear context tells an agent that this is for replacing an existing household and that expectedVersion should come from get_household to avoid clobbering concurrent changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_household or project_household or state when to prefer them, 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.