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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond that: diagnostic findings are withheld from the response until inspected, which tells the agent its output will be incomplete by design and why.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly dangling ("until inspected" by whom/what), but it is short enough that nothing needs cutting.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does indicate the response contents (scenario plus available IDs) and the gating behavior. However, for a tool with a required enum parameter set covering three distinct game modes, the description says nothing about what varies across those modes or how this differs from the arena instructions/matches tools.

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 50%: `scenario` is documented as an optional scenario ID, but `game` (with its three enum values) carries no description anywhere. The description partially compensates by implying that omitting `scenario` yields available IDs and supplying it reads a scenario, but it never explains what the `game` enum means or how it changes 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?

It gives a verb and resource ("Read a fictional scenario and available scenario IDs"), but the two purposes are fused ambiguously — is this a lister of scenario IDs or a reader of one scenario? Nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like morrowkin_get_arena_instructions, morrowkin_read_arena_match, or morrowkin_list_arena_matches, so an agent cannot confidently choose it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call it versus the arena-related siblings, and no statement about when to supply `scenario` versus omit it. The only hint is the diagnostic-gating remark, which describes downstream flow rather than selection criteria.

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