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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real context beyond that: it is a "latest saved" precomputed snapshot rather than a live calculation, and it discloses an authorization boundary (scoped specialists are blocked). It does not describe freshness/staleness behavior or return format, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: what it returns first, when to use it second, access constraint last. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only, fully-annotated tool, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, returned fields, and an access restriction. No output schema exists but the description enumerates the payload, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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 a single clientId parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (it never mentions clientId or scoping behavior), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ("Read") and resource ("household's latest saved financial snapshot") and enumerates the exact metrics returned: cash runway, debt payoff horizon, freedom delta, calculation date, and data quality. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_client_liquidity or get_client_tax_reserve.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ("how long their money lasts or how their income, spending, and debt compare") plus an access constraint ("Scoped specialists cannot access this snapshot"). It does not name specific alternative tools, 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.