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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Run.' It does not disclose what the scenario produces, how it behaves, or any practical implications beyond what the annotations already state.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is so sparse that it reads like a paraphrase of the tool name rather than a substantive explanation, leaving little value for an agent selecting among sibling tools.

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?

With no output schema, only 25% schema description coverage, and four parameters, this description leaves nearly every operational detail unspecified: no return shape, no meaning for depth or preset, no relationship between inputs and outputs, and no usage context. An agent would need substantial external domain knowledge to invoke this tool 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% (only depth has a minimal '1 | 2 | 3' description), and the description names none of the four parameters. It provides only faint domain context that sanctioning_bodies and target_entities relate to sanctions, which is insufficient to define preset, depth, or list semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run a sanctions propagation scenario,' which clearly names the action and topically distinguishes it from the query siblings and run_chokepoint_scenario. It stops short of 5 because it does not explain what the scenario computes or how it differs behaviorally from the chokepoint alternative.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_chokepoint_scenario. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals that help an agent decide between the scenario tools.

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