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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine behavioral meaning: how to interpret a REFUSED outcome ('do not escalate and do not invent a tier') and the downstream dependency on evaluate_commitment. It doesn't describe the response shape, but the output schema carries that.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the decision framing front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (scope, REFUSED handling, evaluate_commitment dependency) carries actionable weight.

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 policy-decision tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers the hardest parts: outcome interpretation and the chaining rule to evaluate_commitment. The remaining gap is the absence of any parameter-level guidance, but return values and safety semantics are otherwise well covered.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains deskId, channel, or targetTier, and only indirectly echoes the action enum values ('escalate...refund, feature, or timeline'), which gives minimal added meaning over the schema's enum.

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 decision verb and resource: deciding whether a channel may escalate or promise a refund/feature/timeline. It also distinguishes the sibling relationship by noting that promising requires evaluate_commitment for exact wording. The scope phrase 'this channel' is slightly context-dependent, but overall the purpose 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?

It gives an explicit conditional route: 'Permission to promise still requires evaluate_commitment for the exact wording,' which tells the agent when to chain to a sibling. However, it does not state when to call this versus the many other policy-lookup siblings (list_escalation_limits, list_refund_rules), nor any explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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