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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: that inactive/non-live revisions are retrievable, and that the response includes nodes and warnings.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (one, active or not, nodes and warnings) contributes 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?

For a two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers both input discovery (via the schema) and the shape of the return (nodes, warnings). It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, but little is missing for such a simple 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 both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'active or not' adds a small amount of context about what revision values mean but no formatting or selection detail beyond the schema.

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 scopes it to a single record rather than a list, which implicitly separates it from list_escalation_path_revisions. It also names the payload (nodes and warnings), though no sibling is called out by name.

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?

'Read one ... revision, active or not' implies you fetch a specific revision when you already have its number, and the revision param points at list_escalation_path_revisions for discovery. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against get_escalation_path.

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