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

Annotations already establish the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description usefully reinforces it ('Advisory only... no notification is sent to notify_roles or to anyone else'). It also discloses non-obvious semantics: most-specific-scope-wins resolution and severity-as-a-floor that scales with the gap and facility criticality. It stops short of describing the record shape or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose followed by behavioral details, and every sentence carries real information. Some phrasing is heavier than necessary ('or to anyone else') and the scope-precedence sentence is dense, but overall it is appropriately sized for the semantics it conveys.

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 partially carries the burden by explaining what the consequences express and how severity resolves. It does not enumerate the fields a listed consequence returns, but for a five-optional-param list tool with full annotation coverage it is close to sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, and the description's 'Filter by scope type, severity or active' largely restates it. The 'null metric matches any metric' note is mildly confusing because no metric parameter exists in the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (LoS consequences), then defines the resource in domain terms: 'what a missed technical target means, in the organization's own words.' This cleanly separates it from the get/create/update/delete _los_consequence siblings without needing to name them.

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 explains what the data means but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_los_consequence or list_los_proposed_targets, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage has to be inferred from context alone.

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