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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the composition of results (focus items + grounding context + suggested next actions) and a permissions/scoping constraint about specialists being excluded. Good value added.

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 compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and a caveat second. No filler, though the second sentence's phrasing is slightly abstract.

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, zero-required-param tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It omits any notion of result shape or ordering, but with no output schema and readOnly annotations, the remaining gap is minor.

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 both parameters (clientId, weekStart) are well documented with omit-defaults semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, 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 ('surface') and resource ('prioritised weekly focus items with grounding context and suggested next actions'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_meeting_prep or get_my_action_requests. It's clear what the tool returns, though the 'member's' scope vs 'own household' isn't fully differentiated from relatives like get_client_activity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as get_my_action_requests or get_meeting_prep, which likely overlap. The sentence about scoped specialists is a permission caveat, not usage selection guidance.

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