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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's contribution is the ordering constraint and an outline of returned content, which is modest but real. It does not add behavior like error behavior for an invalid demo_id or the size/shape of the scenario key list.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the content outline is front-loaded ahead of the workflow hint. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 usefully states what the response contains, and the single enum-constrained parameter is fully covered by the schema. What's left thin is the phrase "saved scenario key" — an agent is not told the key's form or how to feed it forward. Minor gap for a low-complexity 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and demo_id is a closed enum of three values, so the schema already fully specifies the parameter. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb (describe/detail) and resource (one optimization demo) and enumerates what is returned: what the demo shows, its source, and every saved scenario key. It implicitly distinguishes itself from describe_greenfield_demo by scoping to optimization demos, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance with a named sibling: "Use before get_opt_result." That tells the agent where this sits in the workflow. It does not say when not to use it, nor does it point at list_opt_demos for discovering valid demo_ids, but the workflow context is clear.

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