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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world computation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it is paid-only, costs 5 prepaid credits, and requires production billing. It still does not explain the result scale or any limits, but the billing and read-only computation behavior are usefully disclosed.

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 short and front-loads the core computation before the billing constraint. The parameter references are imprecise, but the wording is otherwise efficient with no unnecessary 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the returned severity value or scale, but it does not. With 0% schema coverage on all three parameters and a mismatch between described inputs and actual inputs, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description should clarify the three required parameters. Instead it refers to 'impact, urgency and data exposure flags' while the schema has impacted_users, duration_minutes, and sensitive_data_exposed; 'urgency' has no matching parameter and duration_minutes is not mentioned. This adds confusion rather than meaning beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: compute preliminary incident severity. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from related priority/triage tools such as privi_pro_project_priority_matrix.

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 description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions beyond billing. The word 'preliminary' implies triage usage, but this is only weakly implied.

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