Find problems in the home

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them  that expected/unavailable entities are skipped and that the reference scan is a slower opt-in  but says nothing about result ordering, severity, or how partial failures in the scan itself are reported.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then enumerates coverage without filler or repetition. The dense comma list is readable and every clause names a distinct finding category, though the lack of any structure beyond one sentence makes it slightly harder to skim.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and the enumeration of finding categories largely does that, plus the schema's "maximum items per section" implies a sectioned result. It stops short of describing the actual response shape, per-item fields, or how an all-clear result is represented.

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 limit, stale_hours, and check_references are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at check_references via "optionally automations and scripts"; it adds no format, unit, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Scan for things that need attention" gives a specific verb and the enumeration of findings (unavailable entities, stale sensors, low batteries, failed integrations, open repairs, updates, optional broken references) makes the tool's scope concrete. It is effectively the aggregate sweep that subsumes single-purpose siblings like list_repairs, but it never names those siblings to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 the use case (a one-shot health sweep of the home) and the phrase "optionally automations and scripts" hints at the opt-in cost of the reference check. It does not state when to prefer this over list_repairs, check_config, or get_system_health, nor does it give prerequisites or recommended cadence.

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