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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing what the response reveals: step sequence, linked schedules, and contact channels. It does not contradict the read-only hint and provides meaningful behavioral context for a simple getter.

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. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by summarizing the useful response contents.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the scope, the lookup key, and the returned content. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the single uuid parameter is already fully documented with its format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming UUID-based lookup, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'One policy by UUID,' identifying the specific verb-resource pairing and scope. It distinguishes this from list_escalation_policies and other get_* tools by emphasizing a single policy lookup and enumerating the returned details.

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 'One policy by UUID' clearly indicates the appropriate context: use this when you have a specific escalation policy UUID. It does not explicitly name the alternative for listing policies, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over list_escalation_policies.

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