assess_living

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, which the description goes well beyond: it discloses the relative-walking heuristic, that it works for undated people, that the answer is advisory, and that bulk output is filtered by an independent server rule regardless of the result. Those are real behavioral caveats an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mechanism, usage guidance, and caveat in a logical order. Slightly line-broken and a touch verbose, but every sentence contributes a distinct point with no filler.

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 advisory tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the advisory caveat, the explain mode, and an independent filtering behavior. It stops short of describing the verdict's shape or any confidence/error semantics, which would help an agent interpret results, but the essentials are present.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces `explain` by framing it as reasoning vs. verdict, but says nothing about `average_generation_gap` or `max_age_probably_alive` beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific operation on a specific resource: determine whether a person is probably still alive, with a rationale. It also explains the mechanism (walking relatives) so an agent knows what class of question this answers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, though none of the listed siblings overlaps this capability.

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?

It states a concrete use condition ('before publishing or sharing anything') and routes between modes ('use explain when you want to see the reasoning rather than just the verdict'). No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, but the trigger context is clear enough to act on.

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