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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered newest first and the active revision is flagged, which tells the agent how to interpret the response without an 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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the ordering and active-revision detail front-loaded alongside the core action. Nothing could be removed without losing 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, the description usefully discloses sort order and the active-revision marker, which is what an agent most needs to interpret results. It is silent on pagination or result-size limits, a minor gap for a single-parameter list tool.

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 single team_id parameter is already documented in the schema ('The team's id, from list_teams.'). The description only restates the team scoping, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (List) and fully-qualified resource (a team's escalation policy revisions), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_escalation_path_revisions and list_gateway_server_revisions. It does not explicitly route against sibling tools, but the resource naming 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 by the verb and resource: fetch the revision history for one team's escalation policy. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_team_escalation_policy_revision or activate_team_escalation_policy_revision, and no stated prerequisites beyond the team_id.

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