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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds domain-specific context beyond the annotations: it does not edit a website, contact third parties, persist data, or promise rankings/mentions — the last point being genuinely new behavioral information about the absence of outcome guarantees.

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, no filler. The negative-scope sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information. Slightly more structured routing guidance could shorten the inference load, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only/non-persistent nature is covered. For a 4-required-parameter tool this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is explicit routing relative to the two sibling tools.

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 75%, so the schema does most of the work (goal tie-breaking, status semantics, evidence length limit). The description only alludes to the findings array via "caller-supplied findings" and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 and resource ("prioritize fixes") and names the mechanism ("deterministic rubric") plus the input source ("caller-supplied findings"). This distinguishes it from a general analyzer, but it never names the siblings analyze_discovery_readiness or summarize_scan_evidence, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 phrase "from caller-supplied findings" implies this is a downstream step that consumes output from an earlier scan/analysis tool, giving weak implied routing. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over analyze_discovery_readiness or summarize_scan_evidence, and no when-not conditions.

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