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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine extra context: it does not move money, make tax/legal recommendations, or treat missing evidence as an all-clear, and scoped specialists are excluded. Those boundaries materially shape how an agent should interpret and act on the result.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope, the joined data shape, and the limitations are all stated compactly. Phrasing like 'bounded next moves' is jargon-heavy but still compact.

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-shape burden and does so by enumerating what the view joins (coming dates, source records, responsible entities, connected cash, verification gaps, next moves). Combined with annotation-covered safety and full parameter documentation, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though the response format itself remains unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and the single clientId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-self behavior. The description's 'your own record or an assigned client' mirrors the schema without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (get) and a specific artifact (a deterministic 90-day household readiness view), plus the scope (own record or assigned client). It clearly implies a distinct role next to snapshot/context siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to differentiate explicitly.

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 description establishes the applicable scope ('your own record or an assigned client') and excludes scoped specialists, but it gives no explicit trigger for choosing this over get_household_financial_snapshot, get_what_matters_now, or get_meeting_prep. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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