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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the data-shape disclosure (names, HeadId, member Ids), which helps the agent parse the response even without an output schema. It says nothing about pagination, auth scope, or behavior for missing/invalid ids.

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 compact sentences plus an endpoint note. The return payload is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is essentially complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what the endpoint returns on a missing household, but no output schema or error model is promised.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already warns 'not the CRM AccountNumber'. The description reinforces the linkage model (constituent HouseholdId → this id), which adds relational meaning beyond the schema's type constraint, nudging above the baseline 3.

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 (Fetch) and resource (a household) and enumerates exactly what's returned — names, HeadId, member constituent Ids. That concrete field list distinguishes it from bloomerang_get_constituent, which is the key sibling an agent could confuse it with.

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' tells the agent the routing condition — use this when you have a HouseholdId from a constituent record. It stops short of explicitly naming bloomerang_get_constituent as the alternative for individual records, but the context is clear.

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