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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the server-side derivation of eligibility, tenant, etc., and notes idempotency (matching the annotation). However, it does not elaborate on the concrete effects of the retry (e.g., whether the block is cleared, what happens to existing state). Since destructive behavior is flagged but not detailed, the description carries only moderate extra value beyond annotations.

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 three concise sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the required input, a note on server-side derivation, and a clear distinction from a sibling. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return handling is covered. Annotations provide destructive/idempotent flags. The description explains when to use and how to get one parameter, but the vague handling of decision_md and a slight naming inconsistency ('task_block id' vs 'escalation_id') leave gaps. For a two-parameter tool, missing half the parameter semantics is notable, though the overall purpose and usage are clear.

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 compensate. It explains that escalation_id (likely the 'task_block id' mentioned) should come from list_escalations, providing partial meaning. However, decision_md is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on what content or formatting is expected. With two required parameters and only one addressed, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Grant one fresh attempt after fixing a recovery-budget task block') and identifies the resource (task block). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'resolve_escalation', making it easy to tell apart. The purpose is unambiguous and tied to a concrete use case.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it tells the agent to pass the task_block id from list_escalations and explains that this tool is distinct from resolve_escalation, which is acknowledgement-only. It also implies the timing ('after fixing') and that eligibility is derived server-side. This fully directs the agent on when to use it versus the main alternative.

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