shelter_coach_advice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as what output to expect, and mostly restates purpose rather than disclosing additional behavior.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope immediately. Every word contributes, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and rich safety annotations, so the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that with no output schema, the description could clarify the form of the returned advice, though 'financial advice' reasonably implies a text response.

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 schema fully describes the single topic parameter with an enum and description, so baseline is 3. The description lists most enum values but omits 'general', adding little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides and potentially understating the allowed topic set.

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 states a specific action ('Get targeted financial advice') and a resource ('financial advice') with a clear topic scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like shelter_ask or shelter_coach_daily, but the 'targeted' and 'specific topic' framing gives a solid sense of purpose.

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 conveys clear usage context: use this tool when you need advice focused on one listed financial topic. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the explicit topic list effectively scopes its appropriate use.

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