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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses rich behavioral traits: förening groups/schedule/parents' groups follow, community visibility and age-review rules, company 14-day trial with later web-only plan choice, and duplicate handling via force. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs for a complex mutation.

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 description is long but front-loaded with the core action, then organized by kind and exception. Every clause carries operational meaning, though the density and parentheticals make it slightly heavy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the rich schema, the output schema, and the annotations, the description is complete for correct invocation. It covers all three creation paths, special review rules, trial behavior, and duplicate resolution without needing to explain return values.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, such as kind-specific behavior, age/join defaults, the duplicate-force workflow, and the company trial constraint.

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: "Start a home the person will run," then enumerates the three kinds (förening, community, company). It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like list_homes or update_home, which manage existing homes.

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?

The description gives a clear usage condition: "Only when they ask, with the name they chose," and a conditional exception for force when duplicates are not the person's. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but no sibling create tool exists, so the practical guidance is strong.

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