escalation_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-default behavior ('Refuses an unknown severity rather than defaulting to the quietest one') and describes the output nature (ordered list with minute timings). No other side effects are mentioned, but the tool appears read-only and the disclosure is sufficient for a simple query.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by the refusal behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (who, order, timing) and the key behavioral nuance (refusal on unknown severity). Nothing critical is missing given the tool's simplicity, though explicit error handling for unknown service isn't described.

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 coverage is 50% (severity has a description, service does not). The description adds significant meaning to severity: it must be a catalog-defined value and unknown ones are refused. Service is only referenced as 'this service' without additional constraints, but the schema already defines it as a string. Overall, the description compensates well for the coverage 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 states a specific query (who to wake) for a defined resource (this service at this severity) and includes output order and timing. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like who_owns (ownership) and impact_clock (timing) by focusing on the escalation path itself.

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 implies usage ('Who to wake for this service at this severity') but never explicitly says when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so an agent must infer from tool names rather than get explicit routing guidance.

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