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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description adds substantial domain context beyond them: default values per tier (critical 0.6, high 0.8, medium 1.0, low 1.4), the semantic effect of values below/above 1, the allowed range 0.1-1.9, and that deleting a row restores the default. This is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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 core identity is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by dense, non-redundant sentences explaining override semantics, default values, modifier direction, and range. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the returned data model and does so fully: overrides-only rows, per-tier defaults, value direction, and valid range. Pagination is handled by the schema, and the safety profile by annotations, so nothing material is missing.

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 page/per_page/criticality are already documented, and the one enum is fully specified in the schema. The description's 'Filter by tier' adds only a restatement of the criticality parameter with no extra syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (criticality modifier overrides), which cleanly distinguishes it from get_criticality_modifier (singular read), create_criticality_modifier, and the update/delete siblings. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 clear context: it lists only overrides, so an empty result means every tier is on its default, and it notes filtering by tier. It does not explicitly name get_criticality_modifier as the alternative for fetching a single row, so it stops short of full when-to-use routing.

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