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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the exact revision fields and the requirement from ticket_validation_finalize, but it does not describe edge cases like missing tickets or archived scenarios.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main action and unique return fields are front-loaded, the read-only nature is noted, and the usage guidance follows compactly.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key returned fields and gives concrete invocation purposes. Minor gaps remain around include_archived behavior and full response structure, but the core calling context is sufficiently specified.

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 must compensate. It does add meaning to ticket_id by specifying 'owned ticket', but it entirely omits include_archived, leaving that optional parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('an owned ticket's scenarios'), and states the distinctive deliverable: exact current revisions with current_version and current_definition_hash. It clearly differentiates from ticket_scenario_create and ticket_scenario_revise by focusing on read-only listing rather than mutation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: before recording a run to confirm the current revision, and to diagnose required_scenario_missing on an epic. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the provided use cases give clear contextual guidance.

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