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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'Return', implying a retrieval-like operation without confirming side effects, caching, auth, or mutation behavior. It does not describe what 'secure-context evals' contain or how they are produced, leaving the agent to infer the tool's behavior from its name.

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 sentence that is short, front-loaded, and free of filler. It earns its place by stating what the tool returns and its topical scope, though it is concise almost to the point of being under-informative.

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 5 optional parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and a large set of sibling recipe packs, the description is too thin to be operationally complete. An agent cannot determine the purpose of each parameter, know how to construct a valid call, or understand when this 'eval pack' is the right choice.

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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'decision', 'scenario_id', 'workflow_id', 'mininum_score', or 'scenario_type' control. The names are partially self-explanatory, but the ambiguous 'decision' and the relationship between parameters and the returned evals are left entirely to the agent to guess.

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 action ('Return') and a specific resource ('scenario-backed secure-conext evals') while listing topical areas (retrieval, attestation, egress, handoffs). This gives agents a clear sense of the tool's output and distinguishes it from sibling packs that provide attestions, policies, or risk registries rather than evals.

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 choose this tool over the many sibling recipe packs, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'scenario-backed' is a weak usage hint, but the description does not explain when an agent should invoke this tool versus related secure-context packs.

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