Caregiver summary and dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by listing the summary's contents and disclosing that hosts supporting MCP Apps may render a live family dashboard. This conditional rendering behavior is useful context beyond the structured annotations, though error or availability behavior is not discussed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose and content in a dense list, and the second adds a meaningful conditional about dashboard rendering. It is not padded, though the 'MCP Apps' terminology could be slightly unclear without additional context.

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, idempotent tool with only two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and content. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_todays_plan, but the audience and weekly scope largely convey that. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the 7/30-day adherence window but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, 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 identifies a caregiver-facing summary of the elder's week and enumerates the exact data areas: medication adherence, today's doses, open alerts, check-in trend, and appointments. This specificity distinguishes it from siblings like get_todays_plan, which is more narrowly about today's plan. The tool's role as a read-only dashboard is unmistakable.

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 caregiver-facing and weekly-summary framing implies when this tool is appropriate, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus get_todays_plan or the alert/dose tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided. The dashboard rendering note adds some context but does not give clear selection criteria.

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