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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response (names, HeadId, member constituent Ids) and the underlying API route. There is no mention of permissions, pagination, or error behavior, but for a read-only lookup the remaining burden is light.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact endpoint reference, with the return payload front-loaded before the data-model note. No filler, and every clause carries either scope or content information.

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, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does list the key fields a caller would rely on. It is not exhaustive about the household object's full attribute set, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 schema already explains that household_id is the API Id rather than the CRM AccountNumber, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the distinction between HouseholdId and other identifiers but adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch a household') and immediately enumerates the returned payload — names, HeadId, member constituent Ids — so the agent knows exactly what this returns versus a constituent fetch. The note that 'A constituent's HouseholdId points here' plus the endpoint mapping (GET /household/{id}) distinguishes it from the sibling get_constituent tools.

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?

The line 'A constituent's HouseholdId points here' gives the agent a real trigger condition: fetch this when you have a HouseholdId surfaced from a constituent record. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it (e.g., use get_constituent for an individual), so no explicit exclusions are present.

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