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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: naming is app-specific per home type (with concrete examples), admins see pending join-asks ('adults asking to lead a förening'), and a directive to keep names to the person. 'Read only' merely echoes the annotation, but the rest goes beyond 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?

Content is front-loaded ('Who is in a home...'), and the trailing cross-reference and 'Read only' are useful placement. The parenthetical name examples are long and the sentence is dense with em-dashes, and 'Read only' duplicates the annotation, so a small amount of trimming is possible.

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 not be explained, and the description still covers scope (whole-home vs admin-only asks), naming behavior, and the follow-on manage_member route. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing, though the admin-visibility distinction could be stated more explicitly.

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% and the single `home` parameter is already well documented (name or id from list_homes, optional when one home exists). The description references the home concept but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema is correct.

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 the resource (who is in a home) and its scope — roles and, for admins, asks to join — which is a specific subject distinct from siblings like list_homes and list_friends. It never uses a clean verb such as 'list' and the 'a home the person is in' phrasing is a little circular, but the resource and contents are identifiable. Adequate differentiation, if not crisp.

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?

Cross-references the sibling manage_member ('Use memberId with manage_member') and notes the admin-only view of asks to join, so usage is implied by context. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus e.g. list_friends or list_identities, nor any exclusion. Guidance is present but only implied.

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