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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive, so the description's contribution is genuinely additive: it discloses that inactive revisions can be fetched and that results include warnings for targets who have left the team. That is real behavioral/output context not present in the structured fields.

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 the scope qualifier and the warning behavior packed in; no filler, every clause earns its place.

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 tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, this is nearly complete — the only omission is a hint about what the response object looks like beyond the departed-target warnings.

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 with their sources (list_teams, list_team_escalation_policy_revisions). The description adds no format or constraint 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read one team escalation policy revision' — the 'one' contrasts with the sibling list_team_escalation_policy_revisions and the 'revision' scope contrasts with get_team_escalation_policy. It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'active or not' (no need to check status first) and the schema points to list_team_escalation_policy_revisions for revision numbers. There is no explicit when-to-use vs get_team_escalation_policy or activate_team_escalation_policy_revision statement.

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