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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the substantive behavior instead — that results are scoped to the calling person's own household and permissions, and what each part actually yields (itemIds, a week of dinners, whose turn). It does not mention authorization requirements or what happens when the person belongs to no household, but the added scope information is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short and front-loads the no-part case, but the telegraphic style ("No `part`:", "Or one part:") forces parsing, and the two list references — "the list" inside today's view versus "their own list" — read as the same thing without disambiguation. The final routing sentence is placed well but sits apart from the rest with no lead-in.

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 three parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return shape, and it only sketches it (counts, itemIds, "a week", "whose turn") without indicating structure or what the no-part aggregate looks like. For a read tool with rich annotations the safety side is complete, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape of the default call.

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?

The `part` enum has no per-value descriptions in the schema, and the description supplies them (list/dinners/chores/calendar each with a gloss), which is the main gap it could fill. It reinforces `week` as a one-week window, matching the schema's default-this-week note. `household` is only indirectly covered by "their households" and otherwise relies on the schema, which already explains it.

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 specific resource (the household) and enumerates the exact slices it can return — households, role, permissions, today's dinner/chores/list, or a single part. The parenthetical glosses on each enum value (list = what to buy/itemIds, chores = what's due/whose turn) make the resource concrete. It stops short of a crisp verb-resource statement because the opening sentence, "The household as the person sees it," is oblique about whether this reads or renders data.

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 explicitly splits the call into two modes — "No `part`" for the person's whole picture versus "Or one part" for a single slice — which is real when-to-use guidance. It also routes an adjacent intent to a sibling: "For 'what's on this week': list_upcoming." No exclusions are stated (e.g., when not to call it, or which sibling covers other households), which keeps it off a 5.

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