get_escalation_policy

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 a non-obvious constraint the schema cannot express — that the operation requires the Pro edition — which is genuine behavioral context an agent needs to avoid calling it in a non-Pro environment. It does not say what an edition failure looks like, hence not a 5.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the environment constraint following. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-object read with one fully documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, this is nearly sufficient, and the Pro-edition note closes the biggest gap. The only remaining omission is a hint about what the returned policy object contains, which would help since there is no output schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents "id". The description reinforces it as "by ID" but adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3.

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 ("Get a single escalation policy") and the retrieval key ("by ID"), which distinguishes it from the list_escalation_policies sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the update/delete variants, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"By ID" implies the tool is for direct, known-identifier lookup as opposed to listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no mention of the list or update alternatives, and no guidance on what to do if the ID is unknown.

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