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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds real value with the omitted-request default path and the explicit licence caveat ('this does not verify a licence'), which an agent could not learn from annotations. It says nothing about how the scaling is computed or what limits apply.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the default behavior and then the permission constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the two things an agent genuinely cannot infer: the optional-request default and the rights confirmation requirement. The main residual gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to sibling stress tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning; it does explain that 'request' is optional and defaults to the synthetic example, and that rights_confirmed must be true for supplied data. It does not explain the ScaleRequest internals that matter most, notably the data_mode enum ('synthetic' vs 'user-licensed') or how target_loss relates to nav and currency, leaving the nested schema to speak for itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scale a scenario') plus the precise objective ('so the book loses a target amount'), which is far more informative than the title 'Scenario scaling'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from conceptually adjacent siblings such as risk_reverse_stress or risk_stress, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance for both modes: omit the request to use the shipped synthetic example, or supply data with permission and rights_confirmed=true. It stops short of naming when an agent should pick this over alternative stress/reverse-stress tools.

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