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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: revisions may be active or not, and the response can include warnings about targets who have since left the team.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no wasted wording. The key behavioral detail about warnings is front-loaded alongside the primary read purpose.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and annotations that cover safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could improve by briefly indicating the return shape or warning format, but it already supplies the main non-obvious behavioral caveat.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including where team_id and revision come from. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema description coverage.

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: read one team escalation policy revision. It explicitly covers both active and inactive revisions and adds the distinctive warning behavior, which separates it from list and activation siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

The description implies usage by naming the operation as reading a single revision, and the schema points to list_team_escalation_policy_revisions as the source for the revision number. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or direct comparison to get_team_escalation_policy or the list tool.

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