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), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: self-added items are labeled, non-source-backed, and non-fileable until X1 matches evidence; explicit current filters stay source-backed; non-fileable entities can't be belongs-to targets; identifiedForReview items are never counted. This is rich, non-redundant disclosure.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single dense paragraph mixing return contents, filter behavior, filing eligibility, and role permissions. Each clause is substantive but the lack of structure makes it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 and six parameters at 50% description coverage, the description does most of the heavy lifting: it explains the filtered-return behavior, the identifiedForReview bucket, and filing constraints. Only a few parameter-level details remain underspecified.

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 50%: status, clientId, and clientRef are documented in-schema. The description adds meaning for includeCounts ('optional document/artifact counts') and implies entity types and lifecycle state, but limit, the entityType enum values, and includeCounts semantics are not explained beyond the schema. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the household's structured entities, trusts, properties, assets, and personal filing bucket,' and enumerates the returned fields (stable IDs, lifecycle state, aliases, counts). This clearly distinguishes it as a household-graph listing tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like get_household_financial_snapshot or get_family_office_context.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: members and Multiplier operators use fileable IDs for filing/cleanup, advisors use them to understand the household map and file artifacts, and scoped specialists are excluded. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from this tool to a specific alternative when the household graph isn't what's wanted.

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