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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by previewing the response shape (totalEscalations, escalations array, pagination) and citing the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

A tight two-sentence block with the purpose front-loaded and the response shape appended for reference. The endpoint citation adds modest but non-essential detail; nothing is bloated.

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?

With no output schema present, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and pagination. Combined with the fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call.

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% and the single teamId parameter is thoroughly documented (24-char hex, x-team-id header, default fallback, how to list ids). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (escalation policies) with a scope qualifier (a team's), which cleanly separates it from the singular spike_get_escalation sibling. It does not explicitly name the get counterpart, but the list/get distinction is self-evident.

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 notes the operation is 'team-scoped' but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The routing hint about omitting teamId to use the default lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself adds no usage direction.

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