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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so 'Read only' is redundant. The description earns its keep by disclosing the returned data shape and a real behavioral nuance — under-18 homes turn #kanal changes into cards requiring confirmation.

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 a single very long run-on sentence with a parenthetical aside ('then #kanal changes are cards they confirm'), which makes it dense and slightly hard to parse. The resource is front-loaded and little is truly wasted, but the structure could be broken up for clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is technically optional, yet the description still enumerates returned fields, which is helpful context. No parameters need documenting and the safety traits are covered by annotations, making this essentially 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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and 100% covered, and the description's mention of `home` refers to passing values to other tools, not to an input of this one, so no additional compensation is needed.

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 precisely (föreningar, companies, communities the person is in) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this lists. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_households, leaving that boundary to inference.

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 gives one concrete workflow rule — 'Pass a home's id or name as `home` to the other admin tools' — which clarifies downstream usage. But it never states when to call this versus list_households or the other list_* siblings, so selection guidance is only partial.

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