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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating 'No LLM call' – a behavioral detail not in annotations – and provides a lifecycle reference ('enricher://docs/model-benchmark') that hints at operational context. This is beyond what structured fields provide, though not extensive.

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 two sentences, with the core action front-loaded ('List compact benchmark scenario summaries and total'). It includes sibling routing and a documentation pointer without excess. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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 tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and behavior. It even points to lifecycle documentation. An agent can confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone, with no missing critical details.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it instead mentions the output ('summaries and total'), which is appropriate. No redundancy with the schema.

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: 'List compact benchmark scenario summaries and total.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternatives (get_benchmark_scenario and create_benchmark_scenario) and defines the scope (scenarios test enrichment, sample generation or schema generation). This is precise and immediately tells the agent what the tool does.

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?

It provides clear routing: 'Read one with get_benchmark_scenario or create one with create_benchmark_scenario,' which tells the agent when to use alternatives. It also notes 'No LLM call,' implying it's a lightweight operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state conditions like 'when you need detailed info, use get...' but the guidance is clear enough. The lifecycle reference adds context for when to consult documentation.

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