describe_household_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Describe' suggests a read-only, non-destructive operationaine; the phrase 'top-level fields' bounds the scope of what is reported. Still, it does not disclose the return shape, whether nested structure is omitted, or any other behavioral detail beyond the core act of describing.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does, which is ideal for a parameterless introspection tool.

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?

Given the tool's trivial input surface, the description is nearly complete: it says exactly what the tool exposes (top-level fields) and the domain (synthetic household). It could mention the output format explicitly, but 'describe... fields' already conveys the essential contract.

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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters because none exist.

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?

The description clearly names the verb 'Describe' and the specific resource: 'top-level fields of a synthetic household record.' It distinguishes the tool from the get/list siblings by framing it as a schema-introspection operation, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to know the top-level fields of a synthetic household. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives like get_sample_household, and no exclusions are stated.

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