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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing that inactive revisions are readable and that the payload includes nodes and warnings — meaningful context for a tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, the active/inactive scope stated early, and the return contents at the end. No filler.

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 naming the returned components (nodes, warnings). Safety is covered by annotations. It stops short of explaining failure modes (e.g., unknown revision) or what 'warnings' contains, but it is sufficient to call the tool 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 both path_key and revision are already documented, including the pointer to list_escalation_path_revisions for revision provenance. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one escalation path revision), and the qualifier 'active or not' distinguishes it from tools that only surface the current revision. It does not explicitly name siblings like get_escalation_path or list_escalation_path_revisions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one ... revision' and 'active or not' signal this is the fetch-a-specific-revision companion to list_escalation_path_revisions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the description itself.

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