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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool lists templates and explicitly says 'No parameters,' which implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether permissions are required or mention any potential errors, though for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the tool's purpose and output contents without any superfluous filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what is returned and the scope (all templates, custom-model format, period labels). It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format, but for a listing tool with this simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'No parameters.' According to the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools, and the description reinforces this clarity, so no further documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'every scenario template' and specifies the content: inputs, defaults, outputs, custom-model format, and period labels. This distinguishes it from sibling simulation tools like sim_run or sim_compare, which execute simulations rather than list templates.

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 implies a usage context (when you need to know available templates before running simulations) but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It lacks the explicit alternative guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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