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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: the meaning of an APPROVED limit and the operational consequence of its absence, which helps the agent interpret results. It does not, however, describe pagination or filtering behavior.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is arguably domain guidance rather than tool description, but it is short and earns its place by clarifying the data's significance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description omits any parameter guidance despite 0% schema coverage and gives no routing versus siblings, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with a required deskId.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: neither 'deskId' nor 'includeRetired' is mentioned or explained. The agent gets no guidance on the required desk scoping or on what including retired limits means.

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 and resource ('Read escalation limits'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as list_approved_commitments or list_refund_rules, so an agent gets no help telling these apart from the description alone.

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 second sentence implies why the data matters (a channel without an APPROVED limit cannot promise anything), which hints at the relevance of reading these limits. But it never says when to call this tool versus the sibling list tools or what prerequisites (e.g., a valid deskId) are needed.

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