shelter_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds that it returns a natural-language summary, which is useful but does not add deeper behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention any auth or rate limits, but with such strong annotations, the baseline for transparency is met.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, 100% schema coverage) and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it. However, it does not elaborate on what the summary includes or how it relates to sibling tools, but the output is presumably just a summary string, so additional detail might be unnecessary.

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 coverage is 100% with the only parameter 'detail' fully described in the schema ('Level of detail — "summary" for a brief overview, "full" for comprehensive context'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to get a natural-language summary of the user's financial situation for conversation context. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (financial situation summary), and the title 'Financial Context' reinforces this. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the purpose is distinct enough given the sibling names (e.g., shelter_status, shelter_runway) that it stands alone.

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 implies usage as conversation context, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings. It mentions 'for use as conversation context,' which suggests it is for generating context before responding to user queries, but no exclusions or alternatives are given. The sibling tools like shelter_status are likely more specific, but the description does not guide the agent to prefer this tool for general context vs. specific status.

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