Get Escalation Policy

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 note about error behavior on a missing/invalid id, or that `include` can expand nested resources. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with zero filler, front-loading both the verb and the lookup key. Nothing to trim and nothing ambiguous in the phrasing itself.

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 and parameter documentation is complete, so the description need not explain return values. What is missing is only the optional-expansion capability implied by `include` and any hint of when to prefer this over sibling getters — minor gaps given the structured data already present.

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 is unusually helpful (it warns there is no `escalation_policy_id` argument and documents the `include` enum with comma-separated syntax). The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('escalation policy') qualified by 'specific ... by id', which distinguishes it from list_escalation_policies and from the level/path getters. However, it never names those siblings or says what makes this the right pick among the escalation-policy family.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as list_escalation_policies for discovery or the escalation-level/path getters. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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