get_escalation_run

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the response includes all deliveries, and the call is gated on the Pro edition. It stops short of saying what happens on a non-Pro call (error shape), but the added context is substantive.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose leads, and the edition prerequisite follows as a clearly separable constraint.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the returned content ('all deliveries'), and an edition gate. The only gap is the failure behavior when the Pro edition is absent, which is a minor omission.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for a fully documented parameter.

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 full detail of an escalation run') plus the payload scope ('including all deliveries'). This implicitly distinguishes it from the list_alert_escalation_runs sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives one real precondition — 'Requires the Pro edition' — which helps an agent avoid a failed call. However, it never states when to fetch a single run versus listing runs, nor names list_alert_escalation_runs as the alternative, so usage is only implied.

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