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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no indication of what the session returns (scenario narratives, matrix, probabilities), runtime, or cost. The '[Pro]' marker does imply an access/tier requirement, which is the one piece of behavioral information present.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded; nothing is wasted or buried. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, which caps it below 5.

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 framework-execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum describe what the session produces and what the '[Pro]' restriction implies. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to infer the entire behavior contract from the name alone.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'input' as the problem or decision to analyze. The description adds no format, length, or content expectations beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a scenario planning session') plus a scope qualifier ('for multiple futures'), which separates it from sibling frameworks like run_pre_mortem or run_second_order_thinking by naming the scenario-planning method itself. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose scenario planning over the other 18 run_* frameworks, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The only signal is the '[Pro]' tag, which hints at a tier gate rather than usage guidance.

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