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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds domain behavior: tiers without an override fall back to built-in defaults, and a modifier below/above 1 tightens/relaxes targets. It does not cover return shape, errors, or auth, but it meaningfully extends the annotation set.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded; the second sentence earns its place by explaining default fallback and modifier direction. No filler.

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?

Simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations but no output schema. Description covers purpose and the meaning/defaults of modifiers; it omits return fields and error behavior, which are minor for this low-complexity get.

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% and the single id parameter is described as 'Criticality modifier ID' with UUID format. The description adds 'by ID' and 'single', but no syntax or constraint beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('criticality modifier override'), with scope 'single ... by ID'. This implicitly separates it from list_criticality_modifiers, but no sibling is named, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 never states when to use this tool rather than list_criticality_modifiers or update_criticality_modifier, nor any prerequisite. 'By ID' implies the identifier is required, but that is already in the schema; no real usage guidance is given.

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