Get Escalation Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what happens for an unknown id, whether the response expands with `include=escalation_policy_levels`, or any permission scope for this open-world read.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but that brevity comes from omission rather than economy — there is no front-loaded guidance on the optional expansion parameter or on error behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, for a two-parameter retrieval tool the absence of any mention of the `include` parameter or of missing-id behavior leaves the definition at the minimum viable level.

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 schema itself clarifies the non-obvious naming (that the argument is `id`, not `escalation_path_id`). The description only echoes 'by id' and says nothing about the optional `include` enum, so it neither compensates nor detracts; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Retrieves a specific escalation path') and scopes it to lookup by id, which separates it from list_escalation_paths and create/update_escalation_path in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it does not say to prefer this over list_escalation_paths when the id is known, nor when to add the `include` option. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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