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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns summary data only and omits heavy fields like populations and launch blockers, and it clarifies that scenarios are saved configurations that are not executed by saving.

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 first sentence front-loads the core action and output fields, and the subsequent sentences provide useful domain context about scenarios and their cost model. Every sentence contributes, though the scenario definition could be seen as slightly more detail than strictly necessary.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it documents the resource, the fields returned, the relationship to get_scenario, and relevant scenario semantics. It does not discuss pagination, ordering, authorization, or error cases, but these are not critical for this simple tool.

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 only provides a required projectId string with no description, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that the operation lists scenarios 'in a project', giving meaningful context to projectId. The description also explains scenario and population concepts, although it does not specify ID formats or error behavior.

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 ('List the scenarios in a project') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_scenario by naming what it omits, so an agent can reliably tell sibling tools apart.

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 clearly contrasts list_scenarios with get_scenario by listing which fields each provides, implying when to choose the lighter overview tool. It does not provide an explicit 'use when / do not use when' rule for every alternative, but the differentiation from get_scenario is strong enough.

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