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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the org-vs-preset fallback resolution rule, the per-criterion return contents (check kind, required flag, auto rule), and an access note ('Readable by every org member').

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, then fallback behavior, then the override and access note. Efficient overall, though the presetSet sentence duplicates schema wording and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately carries the return shape (check kind, required, auto rule) plus the resolution logic and read permissions. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 the baseline is 3. The description's presetSet sentence largely restates the schema text ('Browse one preset set, or all, in place of the set that applies'), adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a well-defined resource (readiness criteria / definition of done), with scope: criteria an org holds projects to before completion or archive. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_readiness_status and run_readiness_check, which operate on status/execution rather than the criteria catalog.

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 default resolution path (org's own criteria, else the platform preset) and the presetSet override give implied usage context, but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus get_readiness_status or run_readiness_check, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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