get_escalation_policies

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

The description implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly. Since no annotations are provided, the description should have disclosed safety aspects, but it only says 'Get', which suggests non-destructive behavior. No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the two modes. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential use cases. It mentions filtering and specific ID retrieval, but lacks detail on default behavior (e.g., default limit, pagination). The parameter schema compensates for most gaps.

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?

All parameters have detailed schema descriptions covering constraints and usage. The tool description adds a high-level summary but no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves PagerDuty escalation policies and offers two modes: by filters or by a specific policy ID. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, which are all different resources.

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 implies two use cases (filtering or by ID) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_incidents or get_oncalls. It gives a clear context but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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