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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by enumerating the exact snapshot contents (rule, identity, score, badge, conditions, channels, acknowledgement/closure info) and the dashboardUrl field, which the schema does not provide.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds one additional return-field detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers both the lookup key and the significant return content, including the dashboardUrl. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret its result is missing.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is already fully described in the schema as 'Escalation id' with 100% schema description coverage. The description merely echoes that the tool fetches by id without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single escalation'), and the retrieval key ('by id'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from siblings like list_escalations and get_escalation_rule by enumerating the escalation-specific payload.

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 phrase 'Fetch a single escalation by id' clearly implies this is the tool to use when the agent has a specific escalation id and needs that escalation's full detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among the listed siblings.

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