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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and non-idempotent; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them — a real-time duration, the consequence of leaving early (current chore stops, others wait), the calming note that 'nothing breaks' while the house gets untidy, and the digest's contents. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, but the behavioral disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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 core action is front-loaded in 'The once-a-day errand', which is good, but the remaining prose is flavor-heavy and dense, with parenthetical enumerations and atmospheric clauses ('the season', 'yesterday's village news') that dilute the actionable content.

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 usefully enumerates what the digest returns (time away, notables such as visitors and letters, routine items, journal notes, season, news), which compensates for the missing return spec. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so only minor gaps remain.

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 both optional parameters (key, client), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, making the baseline 3 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?

The description names a concrete once-per-day action and details its effects: due chores are queued and executed at home, and a digest is produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like 'digest', 'visit', or 'away_note', which is a real risk given 'digest' appears verbatim as a noun in the text.

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?

Frequency is implied by 'The once-a-day errand' and the interruption rule ('going out before done_at stops the one under way') is spelled out, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives such as 'digest' or 'visit', leaving routing to inference.

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