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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so that ground is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: oversized definitions return authenticated resource/JSON Pointer references rather than a truncated recipe, and definitions remain project-owned even when environment-scoped. It stops short of describing auth requirements or the normal return shape.

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?

Three tight sentences with purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is jargon-dense ('authority context', 'truncated executable recipe') which costs some immediate legibility but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema and four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description tells the agent about the oversized-definition edge case but not the ordinary return payload or the revision identifier format. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carry the load. It partially compensates by explaining environmentId's role as authority context for environment-restricted identities and implying projectId is the definitions owner, but it never explains the 64-hex 'revision' format or the projectId/scenarioId relationship.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve one exact saved scenario revision.' The words 'one exact ... revision' distinguish it from the sibling listing tools (firedrill_scenarios, firedrill_recommend_scenarios), though no sibling is named 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?

Provides one conditional rule ('Environment-restricted identities must select environmentId as authority context'), which is real usage guidance for a subset of callers, but says nothing about when to use this tool versus firedrill_scenarios or firedrill_save_scenario, and no prerequisites are stated.

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