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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds a real behavioral fact beyond them - the tool errors when no active revision exists - plus what the response contains. It stops short of details like permission requirements or how 'active' resolution behaves when only drafts exist.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first defines the read and its output, the second front-loads the error condition and the recovery path. Every clause carries information.

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, enumerating the returned fields is valuable, and the failure mode plus fallback makes the tool callable without surprises. Minor gaps remain (no statement of required access level or whether inactive/draft revisions are visible), but nothing essential is missing for a single-key read.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents path_key. The description implies its meaning ('the escalation path's ... revision') but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('escalation path's active revision'), then enumerates the payload (nodes, working hours, repeat setting, warnings). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_escalation_path_revision, which serves a revision-specific view, without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 states the exact failure condition ('Not found when the path has no active revision') and the alternative to use in that case ('use list_escalation_path_revisions then'). This is explicit when-to-use/when-not and names the fallback sibling, leaving nothing to inference.

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