Get on-call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is read-only and describes the outputs (on-call person and escalation order) and the team-vs-service resolution. It does not mention error cases, permissions, or response details, though an output schema likely covers return shape.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence says what the tool returns and the key input distinction. No filler or redundant material.

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 tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the input disambiguation and the output components. The lack of explicit usage boundaries is a minor gap, but the output schema helps cover the return details.

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?

The single required parameter, team_or_service, has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by stating it can be a team or a service whose owning team is resolved. This adds clear meaning beyond the property title, though concrete identifier formats or examples are not given.

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 the tool's purpose: finding who is on call for a team or for the team owning a service, and includes escalation order. This is specific, distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service or check_service_health, and uses a clear resource and scope.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need the current on-call person or escalation chain for a team or service. However, there are no explicit when-not-to-use statements, alternatives, or prerequisites.

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