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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it explains what an empty launchBlockers means, and documents defaults for omitted population fields such as unlimited iterations, aggressionMultiplier 1.0, and unthrottled bandwidth. No contradiction with 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 with front-loaded purpose and then the most important interpretive details. Every sentence earns its place: core resource, launch readiness meaning, population defaults, and a pointer to deeper documentation. No filler.

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?

An output schema is present, so return-value structure does not need to be spelled out. The description covers the essential semantics an agent needs: launch readiness, default field behavior, and where to learn about stages/ramps. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It does not explicitly describe projectId or scenarioId, but these are self-identifying IDs and the description establishes scenario as the resource. Adequate, though not rich.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a single scenario'), and lists the meaningful contents returned: Populations, a dashboard link, and launch readiness. The 'single' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: retrieving one scenario with its populations, dashboard link, and launch readiness. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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