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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real value: the ordering rules ('qualified-human routes outrank routine work; blocked work outranks creating more work'), the explicit 'no clinical interpretation' boundary, and the cost/auth posture ('free and keyless, nothing to sign'). It does not say what happens with an empty items array or whether ties are broken deterministically, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and no filler sentences; the ordering rules and trust boundary each carry information. The trailing 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign' is slightly redundant with itself but is a useful agent-facing detail rather than pure padding.

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 an output schema present, the return value need not be explained, and the description covers safety posture, prioritization semantics, and scope of interpretation. The remaining gap is disambiguation from closely named siblings, which is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the item schema is an untyped generic object, and the description says only 'caller-supplied CareWork' without indicating what fields an item must carry — a place where the description could have compensated but did not.

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 ('prioritization') over a specific resource ('caller-supplied CareWork') and commits to a concrete output ('Returns one next action'). It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as my_next_step or support_next, so an agent cannot rule those out from the description 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite near-neighbors like my_next_step, support_next, and start_here in the sibling list. The clause 'over caller-supplied CareWork' only implies that the caller must already possess the items — it is not framed as a routing condition.

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