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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: exclusions and endorsements are NOT extracted, data is read from uploaded declarations, the resolved household must not be attributed to another person, and scoped specialists are excluded without an explicit future permission.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the guardrails. The adequacy prohibition is stated twice (once abstractly, once as a six-adjective list) and the clientId rule is duplicated from the schema, so it is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, though most sentences carry distinct 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does so thoroughly (per-policy-type fields, staleness, currency, resolved household naming). For a single optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% for the single clientId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add the decision logic (professional's own household vs. a client's) which reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema, but it does not extend beyond what the schema text already says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get the household insurance record') and enumerates exactly what is returned: life policies with sourced death benefit, face amount, cash value, coverage by type, staleness, plus auto/homeowners/umbrella limits, deductibles, named insured, dates, premium, currency. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_household_financial_snapshot or get_client_product_state.

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?

Explicitly states the boundary of use ('never determines coverage adequacy') and routes the excluded judgment to a named alternative (coverageReviewPolicy.requiredStatement) and a licensed professional. It also spells out the clientId condition: pass for a client unless X1 already supplied client-scoped context, omit to read one's own household.

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