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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the server-side derivation of eligibility/tenant/task/status, the business-level replay guard ('an already-retried block is not retried again'), and the non-idempotency reason (credential-use state persistence). This adds material behavioral context that the structured fields only hint at.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the parameter source, then the sibling distinction and the idempotency caveat. Slightly dense with backtick-heavy naming, but every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With annotations covering safety and the description covering eligibility, replay behavior, and non-idempotency, the only missing piece is the meaning of decision_md, which is a required parameter.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents escalation_id precisely (the task_block id from list_escalations). decision_md is left completely unexplained, which is a real gap for a required parameter.

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 ('Grant one fresh attempt' on a 'recovery-budget task block') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling resolve_escalation. An agent can tell exactly what this retries and why it is not the same as acknowledging an escalation.

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?

Explains that escalation_id comes from list_escalations and contrasts with resolve_escalation ('remains acknowledgement-only'), which gives clear routing for when to use which. It does not spell out preconditions like 'only call after fixing the underlying issue' in explicit when/when-not form, so it falls short of a 5.

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