assess_living

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it is advisory, it handles undated people via relative inference, and bulk output is filtered by the server's own rule regardless of the return value. These caveats go beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the mechanism, then usage. Three short paragraphs, each earning its place, though the mechanism sentence is slightly elaborate.

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 read-only assessment tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a verdict, plus reasoning under `explain`) and the advisory caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the purpose of `explain`, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('assess/ask whether a person is probably still alive') and resource (a person), and immediately clarifies the key mechanism — the server walks relatives rather than relying only on the person's own dates. No sibling tool does anything comparable, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Gives explicit context ('use it before publishing or sharing anything') and routes to the reasoning mode ('use `explain` when you want to see the reasoning rather than just the verdict'). It does not name a distinct alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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