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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with substantive extra context: it is 'write-nothing', 'deterministic', 'never merges records', and explicitly 'has no MCP confirm tool', plus it delivers a consequence preview and X1 deep link. This prevents an agent from hunting for a confirm tool that doesn't exist.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence is load-bearing because it corrects the dangerous implication of the word 'merge'.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description fully covers what is produced, that no write occurs, and where the follow-up confirmation lives — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 loserEntityId/survivorEntityId/clientId/clientRef are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the two-item pairing and adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific verb (prepare a proposal) and resource (two member-owned household items that may be the same), and immediately distinguishes itself from any actual merge tool by stating it 'never merges records'. An agent can tell exactly what this produces without reading the schema.

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 use condition is stated ('two member-owned household items that may be the same'), and the description clarifies that confirmation happens first-party in X1 rather than via any MCP tool, which routes the agent correctly. It stops short of naming specific siblings (e.g. list_household_entities as the ID source or list_household_entity_change_proposals) or stating explicit when-not conditions.

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