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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating results are newest first and indicating which revision is active, though it does not cover pagination or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds useful information: what is listed, ordering, and active-revision marking.

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 read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains ordering and active status but does not mention pagination or result limits.

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%, and the sole path_key parameter is already documented in the schema as the escalation path's key. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so this is the baseline for high schema 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: list an escalation path's revisions. It also adds ordering and active-status scope, making it easy to distinguish from get_escalation_path_revision and from list_* tools for other resource types.

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 purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives such as get_escalation_path_revision or when not to use this list tool. Usage is inferable from the name and description rather than stated.

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