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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: the tool emits a visit.priority_set event. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the customer/tech is notified, or idempotency of repeated calls, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, zero filler, with the core action and value domain front-loaded ahead of the event and follow-up guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the event + escalation path are covered. Still missing for a mutation tool: the meaning of `reason`, whether re-prioritization is allowed, and any permission or notification consequences.

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 only 33%; only priority is documented, and the description merely restates its three values. The `reason` parameter (maxLength 500) is never explained in either place, and `visit_id` is left implicit, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Set a visit's priority") and enumerates the exact value domain (normal, urgent, emergency). It also names the related side-effect event and points to dispatch.suggest, so an agent can place it precisely among the visits_* siblings.

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 an explicit conditional next step: "For urgent or emergency, call dispatch.suggest for who could go." It does not state when to prefer visits_update or whether priority can be re-set repeatedly, but the main branch condition is clear.

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