Get Household Members

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

ReadOnlyHint already communicates that this tool is safe to call without side effects. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: pending invitations are not included, and the output is designed for transaction ownership updates. It does not contradict the annotations and provides the key scoping behavior an agent would need.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second defines scope exclusion, and the third explains downstream usage. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what is returned, what is excluded, and how the returned values are meant to be used. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this tool correctly 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?

There are zero parameters, so the base expectation is a 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining how the returned IDs should be interpreted in downstream transaction updates, including the special case of an empty string for Shared. No parameter documentation is needed beyond this.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List current household members and IDs for transaction ownership.' It also states a clear purpose (transaction ownership), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which are about household members. Even without a parameter schema, the agent knows exactly what the tool returns.

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 description gives clear context for when the output is used: IDs map to owner_user_id in transaction updates, with special handling for Shared and missing/null values. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool provides household members, so the lack of an alternative comparison is not a meaningful gap. Exclusion of pending invitations further clarifies the expected data.

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