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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the conflict behavior on duplicate tiers (409), the required write scope, and the semantic direction of the modifier (below 1 tightens, above 1 relaxes) plus the built-in defaults a missing row falls back to.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, override/default semantics, effect direction, conflict handling and required scope. Purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is padding.

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 two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it writes, the fallback behavior, the numeric range semantics, the duplicate-tier failure mode and its remedy, and the permission requirement.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by supplying the built-in default values per tier (critical 0.6, high 0.8, medium 1.0, low 1.4) and restating the multiplier's directional effect, which helps interpret the numeric modifier in context. It does not add formatting or unit detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Override the criticality modifier for one tier') and immediately clarifies that rows are overrides rather than defaults, which distinguishes it from get/list/update/delete_criticality_modifier siblings. The per-tier default table makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'One override per tier; a duplicate returns 409, so call list_criticality_modifiers and update the existing row instead.' It also states the prerequisite scope (los_targets:write). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not-to-use/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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