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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world semantics, so the bar is low; the description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the 20-item result cap, the exact fields returned, and an access restriction (scoped specialists cannot read household strategies). It omits what happens when more than 20 strategies exist and whether the status filter accepts arbitrary strings.

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, front-loaded with the payload and bound, followed by the trigger and the negative scope. Nothing is redundant with the title or the schema, and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the returned fields and the 20-item cap. The remaining gap is pagination/truncation behavior and how the status filter values map to records, which an agent may need for correct invocation.

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 both parameters (status, clientId) are already documented, and the description adds nothing about their accepted values, format, or interaction. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full 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 (read), a bounded resource (up to 20 saved household financial strategies) and the exact payload fields returned (status, next steps, progress, update dates). It also positively distinguishes itself from the sibling get_household_financial_snapshot by framing this as the strategy list rather than a snapshot, and explicitly disclaims creation/advice.

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 a clear triggering condition ('Use when the user asks which strategies are active or what remains to do') plus explicit exclusions (not create a strategy, not new investment advice, not available to scoped specialists). It never names an alternative sibling tool to use instead, so routing between this and the snapshot/context tools still requires inference.

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