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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds genuinely new behavior: the three AI consent settings and what each does, plus the hard rule that households with a minor always produce a draft. That is exactly the kind of outcome-level detail an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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-loads the action, then the examples, then the consent rule — no filler sentences. The consent clause is dense and slightly packed into one long sentence, which costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the non-obvious behavior (consent routing, minor safeguard) that the schema and annotations cannot. What is left implicit is duplicate handling and permission requirements, which a mutation tool would ideally state.

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%, so date/time/title/household formats are already documented (YYYY-MM-DD, HH:MM, 'Dentist (Alva)', list_households names). The description's examples echo the schema rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Put an event in the household calendar') and grounds it with two concrete examples, which lets an agent separate it from siblings like create_event, add_hunch, or add_session without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage constraint ('only what the person asked for') and explains the consent gate that decides whether the event is drafted, sent, or refused. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or explicitly contrasting with create_event/read_household_calendar.

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