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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the key behavioral trait that 'each call moves one step further', which goes beyond the annotations and is critical for predicting side effects. It does not disclose error conditions (e.g., reaching the final step), but given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Page the next step') and immediately follows with the behavior ('Each call moves one step further'). Every word 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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering mutation and non-idempotence, the description explains the effect (pages next step) and the step-wise nature. Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It lacks details on failure modes or prerequisites, but these are not necessary for basic invocation.

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%, with the single parameter uuid clearly documented as 'Outage UUID from list_outages.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Page') and resource ('outage's escalation policy'), and clarifies the behavior (moves one step further). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like acknowledge_outage and resolve_outage, which serve different purposes. The phrase 'now instead of waiting for it' further clarifies the action.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to trigger escalation immediately rather than wait for automatic policy timing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use acknowledge if you only need to acknowledge'), but the context is sufficient for an agent to identify the appropriate scenario. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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