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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds some value by enumerating the kinds of data returned in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about authentication requirements beyond the schema, response shape, or cost of the call.

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?

One short fragment with zero filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 does the minimum by listing the returned sections (memory keys, quota, recent notes, balance), which helps an agent anticipate the payload. Still missing: what 'home' scopes to, whether results are per-agent or per-workspace, and any auth expectation, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (api_key) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that it is optional when supplied via Authorization: Bearer or the HAVEN_API_KEY environment variable. The description adds no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 the resource ('Your home') and lists its contents (memory keys, quota, recent notes, balance), which is more informative than the title alone. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it does not distinguish this aggregate view from siblings that surface overlapping data such as balance, my_credits, ledger, and list_notes. An agent can guess it is a dashboard-style read but cannot be certain how it differs from those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer for a specific need (e.g., use balance for credits only, list_notes for notes only). The agent must infer usage purely from the contents list.

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