search_prioritize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description only says protected URLs are 'preserved', without explaining what preservation means operationally, what the prioritized output looks like, or whether any findings are filtered out. It adds little behavioral context the agent couldn't get from annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but only because there is almost nothing to front-load.

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 needn't be explained, but for a required-audit-id, paginated tool with zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing about inputs, ordering rationale, and how protected URLs interact with the result. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently without opening the schema.

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% for all three parameters (audit_id, limit, cursor), and the description mentions none of them. In particular the required 64-hex audit_id format and pagination semantics (limit max 500, cursor) are left entirely to the bare schema titles, 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?

The verb 'Prioritize' plus the object 'audit findings' gives a nominally specific action, but what prioritization means (ranking by severity? risk? exposure?) is never stated, and there is no hint of how this differs from siblings such as search_compare or search_protect_urls. The clause about protected URLs adds scope flavor but not a clear purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that an audit must first be run via search_collect), and no mention of alternatives. The single phrase about protected URLs implies a relationship with search_protect_urls but never tells the agent to use one or the other.

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