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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return ordering ('most fragile first') and an important constraint ('never an equivalence result'). However, it does not clarify whether the screen is read-only, has side effects, or has any execution constraints beyond the output 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?

The description is two short clauses with no wasted words, and the key return semantics and constraint are front-loaded. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential return behavior and an explicit exclusivity constraint. It remains slightly terse about what the metadata sensitivity screen actually inspects, but it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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?

The description states a specific action (run the metadata sensitivity screen) and a specific output behavior (returns convoy order, most fragile first). It also distinguishes the result from an equivalence result, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from named sibling tools.

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?

It gives a boundary condition ('Ordering only - never an equivalence result') that implies when not to use it, but it does not name alternatives or explain when this tool should be chosen over its siblings. Usage is therefore only partially implied.

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