List criticality modifiers

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial domain behavior: the built-in defaults per tier, the meaning of a modifier below vs above 1, the allowed range 0.1–1.9, and that deleting a row restores the default. That is genuine context an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Five tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then defaults, then modifier semantics, then range, then the filter. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is restated from annotations or schema.

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 compensates by describing the row semantics (overrides only, empty list = all defaults) and the value domain. Combined with 100% schema coverage for filters and pagination, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping the criticality enum values to their default weights (critical 0.6, high 0.8, medium 1.0, low 1.4) and explaining what the returned modifier value does for a tier. Pagination params are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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 ('List the organization's criticality modifier overrides') and immediately narrows scope by declaring rows are overrides only. This distinguishes it from get_criticality_modifier and create/update/delete siblings that operate on a single modifier.

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 clear operating context: an empty list means all tiers are on defaults, and 'Filter by tier' tells the agent how to narrow results. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (get_criticality_modifier, update_criticality_modifier) or say when a single-record fetch is preferable, so it falls short of a 5.

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