List Escalation Levels Paths

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 on pagination behaviour (page_size/page_number exist), no result ordering or limits, despite being an 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?

Three words with zero waste, but also zero payload — this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 needn't be explained, but with four parameters (three undocumented), a path-scoped resource, and multiple confusing sibling tools, the description leaves an agent under-equipped to call this correctly.

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 coverage is only 25%: the required escalation_policy_path_id is documented in the schema, but include, page_size, and page_number are undocumented anywhere. The description does not compensate for that gap or explain what 'include' expands.

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 restates the name as 'List escalation levels' but never says these are levels scoped to a specific escalation policy path, which is the only thing distinguishing it from the sibling list_escalation_levels and list_escalation_paths. An agent reading it cannot tell which of the three level/path tools it wants.

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, and no mention of the closely named sibling tools it competes with. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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