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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns exact current revisions and highlights the fields needed by ticket_validation_finalize. It also scopes to 'owned ticket' but does not elaborate on ownership semantics. 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the action and key output details. Every sentence adds relevant context: what the tool lists, that it's read-only, and when to use it. No wasted words.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the primary purpose, use cases, and relationship to ticket_validation_finalize. However, it omits details about the include_archived parameter and what 'owned ticket' means, which are minor gaps for a simple list 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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain either parameter. 'ticket_id' is implied by 'owned ticket,' but 'include_archived' is completely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List an owned ticket's scenarios with their exact current revisions.' It specifies the resource (ticket scenarios) and the key output fields (current_version, current_definition_hash), tying it to ticket_validation_finalize. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticket_scenario_create or ticket_scenario_revise.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use it before recording a run to confirm which revision is current, and to see why an epic still reports required_scenario_missing.' It clearly states when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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