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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses expected latencies (assessment ready within 6 minutes, human replies usually within 2 hours), that replies are surfaced only through this tool, and that credentials are required. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to decide when to poll and when to stop.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by timing expectations and credentials. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return contents, timing, and credential requirements. A minor gap is the absence of guidance on error or expired-token behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents case_id, case_token, and nonce in detail. The description only reinforces that case_id and case_token originate from submit_escalation, adding little beyond the structured fields. This matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented 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 ('Check an escalation case you opened') and enumerates what is returned: status, automated assessment, and replies from the Wiser Human team. This clearly distinguishes it from submit_escalation and add_to_escalation, which create and append to a case rather than read it.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on repeat usage: replies appear only here, so poll again until a human replies or the principal decides. It also states the prerequisite that case_id and case_token come from submit_escalation. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when not to use it, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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