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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context beyond that: household-specific rules govern what the person may do, and presence of an under-18 resident turns every change into a draft the person taps. That is useful behavioral disclosure not derivable from the annotations. Minor deduction for restating 'Read-only' which the annotations already carry.

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 very long, em-dash-chained sentence that crams the permission list, minor-resident behavior, and today's status together. It is front-loaded with 'Start here' and wastes little, but it is dense and unstructured, and 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation rather than earning its place.

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 the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes the payload well (role, visibility, permissions, minor flag, today). For a zero-param read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this is nearly complete; only sibling routing against list_homes is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to compensate for. Schema description coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, so nothing is missing.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (the person's households) and enumerates the fields returned — role, visibility, permissions, minor-in-residence flag, today's status. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_homes, nor from the field-overlapping reads (read_chores, read_dinners, read_shopping_list, read_household_calendar), so an agent cannot tell apart the entry-point summary from the targeted readers.

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?

'Start here for the household' implies this is the entry point and gives a weak sense of ordering, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs list_homes, and no when-not or exclusion guidance. Usage must be inferred from the 'start here' phrasing.

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