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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the authorization requirement ('Requires los_consequences:write scope') and pre-empts the most likely misreading of notify_roles by stating no notification is sent to those roles or anyone else. Annotations only supply the generic write/non-destructive profile; the description carries the meaningful side-effect and visibility semantics.

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?

Five tight sentences, purpose first, then side-effect scope, precedence, severity behavior, and auth. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 and only generic annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the record affects, that nothing is emitted, how matches are resolved, how severity behaves, and what permission is needed. An agent has enough to create the record correctly on the first attempt.

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, but the description adds genuinely new semantics: the scope precedence rule (specific system/feature class over criticality tier over global) and the fact that severity acts as a floor while the severity actually shown scales with gap size and facility criticality. The notify_roles clarification largely restates the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Record what a missed technical Level of Service target means') and explains the artifact's role in the domain (a statement attached to a breached target). It is clearly distinct from sibling creators like create_los_measure or create_infrastructure_los_target, but no sibling is named explicitly, which is what would push this to a 5.

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?

Gives real context for when the record matters ('shown on the Status screen when a matching target is breached') and when multiple records apply ('the most specific scope wins'), which steers how an agent should create one. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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