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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds meaningful non-obvious context: the data is synthetic ('No clinical data') and sandbox-specific fields are not executable in the accountless demo. This helps the agent correctly interpret the returned 'controls' and 'exercises' fields without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences front-load the primary directive ('Use this first') and pack the scenario taxonomy, field content, and the sandbox caveat without repetition. Some phrasing is telegraphic ('12 record'), but no sentence 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?

With an output schema available, no params, and annotations covering mutation/safety, the description supplies everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool: the scenario categories, the linking behavior to sibling tools, and the accountless sandbox limitation. There are no obvious missing operational 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 input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document; baseline for zero-parameter tools applies. The description still adds the cross-tool convention that a returned scenario id should be passed to the other demo tools.

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 names a concrete resource ('synthetic demo scenarios') and an explicit positional action ('Use this first'), plus enumerates the scenario categories (record, behavior, Connect session) and the fields returned. This distinguishes it from the get_demo_* siblings, which each return a specific artifact rather than an index of scenarios.

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 explicitly frames itself as the entry point ('Use this first to choose...') and tells the agent how to connect results to siblings ('Pass an id as scenario to the other demo tools'). This is clear when-to-use guidance and prevents the mistake of treating scenario data as if it could be fetched directly from a getter.

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