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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by stating the API-key requirement and by disclosing the ranking logic (HVA/high-impact/long-lived data first, key establishment before signatures) and the deadlines applied. It stops short of saying whether this is computed live, whether it is deterministic, or how large the result can be.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the artifact name, followed by the auth prerequisite — nothing is wasted and no filler. It is long, but every clause (ranking rules, deadlines, findings types) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does list the returned elements well (ranking, deadline, recommended replacement, metrics, findings). It omits result shape, size, and whether an empty or non-onboarded org returns an error, which matters for a report tool with no parameters to narrow scope.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is parameterless by scoping everything to the caller's organization.

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 artifact (a prioritized migration plan) and enumerates what it contains: ranked assets, deadlines, NIST replacements, progress metrics, and findings. That is far more than a restatement of the title. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gov_pqc_inventory or gov_pqc_classify, so ranking vs. listing vs. labeling is left to inference.

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 content implies usage (you call this when you want a prioritized remediation roadmap rather than raw inventory), and 'Requires the organization API key' is a stated prerequisite. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition is given for choosing this over gov_pqc_inventory, gov_pqc_classify, or gov_pqc_export.

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