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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: unused definitions stay visible, lastExecution is nullable, and large definitions are returned as exact resource references to avoid filling context. That last point in particular tells the agent something about the return shape it would not otherwise know.

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?

Dense but largely front-loaded, with the primary verb+resource in the first clause and no redundant restatement of the name. Phrasing is occasionally compressed to the point of opacity ("with nullable lastExecution in selected environment"), 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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should do more: pagination semantics, the limit default, and the meaning of the evaluation/sequence enums are all missing. It does cover the environment restriction and the resource-reference return behavior, so it is adequate but visibly incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It loosely conveys q (literal name/ID prefix), evaluation, sequence, and environmentId, and pagination is implied by "Page", but limit, cursor, and projectId are never named and the enum values (quality/exact/observation, single/sequence) are left unexplained.

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 ("Page project-owned immutable scenarios") and names the filtering axes, so an agent knows it is a paginated read/list operation over scenarios. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like firedrill_scenario or firedrill_recommend_scenarios, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

"Select environmentId for restricted identities; no execution is required" gives conditional guidance and clarifies a when-not (running a scenario), which is useful. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over firedrill_scenario or the recommendation siblings, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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