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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/no-destructive, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond structured fields by disclosing the exact composition of the payload, including the privacy-relevant detail that suggesters appear as first names and that allergy/preference lines are included.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its scope before detailing the payload. No wasted framing, though the long enumeration makes it slightly harder to scan than a split two-sentence form.

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, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema coverage on both optional parameters, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the timeframe semantics and payload composition. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so both parameters (week, household) are already documented with format examples and defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('the household's dinners for one week') and enumerates the payload: each day's chosen dinner, the suggestions with suggester first names and 👍, plus the allergies/preferences line. That scope plus the 'Monday–Sunday' frame cleanly separates it from siblings like suggest_dinner (write) and read_household_calendar.

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?

No explicit statement of when to call this versus suggest_dinner or read_household_calendar, and no prerequisites are given. The only contextual cue is 'Default: this week' buried in the schema, which is parameter guidance rather than usage routing.

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