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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the Authorization requirement (org.governance.manage, Admin+ by default) and the licensing gate (ENTERPRISE+). It stops short of noting duplicate-name behavior or defaults, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then permission, then feature gate. Every clause carries distinct information with 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 63% schema coverage, the description covers authorization and licensing well but omits how fields interact (e.g., options only apply to DROPDOWN, weight/maxScore constraints) and what is returned on creation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 63% across 8 parameters, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all beyond the implied 'gate' target. Ambiguous fields like fieldType, weight, and options (which feed DROPDOWN/SCORE semantics) get no explanation in either the description or the partially-covered 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 (Create) and resource (org-specific evaluation criterion) scoped to a governance gate, which cleanly separates it from update_evaluation_criterion and list_evaluation_criteria. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the create/update/list distinction is unambiguous from the name alone.

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 prerequisites rather than selection guidance: it names the required permission (org.governance.manage, Admin+ default) and the ENTERPRISE+ governance feature. It never says when to create a criterion versus updating an existing one or how this relates to gate review workflows, so usage is only implied.

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