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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: returns summary plus serialized substrate with per-item sources and authority tiers, notes capped lists shipping true totals, and explicitly states the propagation simulation is interactive-only. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose, available values with inline explanations, and return behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the critical limitations are front-loaded in the final sentence.

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 fully covers what the tool returns (summary + substrate), what it does not return (simulation), and the capping behavior. The single parameter is completely explained via the listed scenario IDs, making the tool self-contained.

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 input schema provides only an enum of scenario_id values with zero descriptions. The description compensates by explaining each value (e.g., 'taiwan-strait (4 TSMC disruption scenarios)'), giving the agent full semantic understanding of the only parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch geopolitical compute risk scenarios.' It then lists the available scenarios with their unique contents, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling get_* tools for companies, facilities, supply chains, etc.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for risk scenarios, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The sibling tool names imply the domain, yet the guidance is not fully explicit.

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