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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that all steps are returned and that scenarioName should be shown while scenarioKey is opaque. It does not discuss errors, missing keys, or permission/rate-limit behavior, so it is not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the resource and return scope, then the display caveat. Every sentence contributes.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description gives a useful partial return map (description, impact, step-by-step composition, scenarioName). It leaves cloud_service semantics and the full return shape unaddressed, but is largely sufficient for a read-only retrieval call.

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 coverage is 50%; the description reinforces scenario_key's origin from list_scenarios and its opaque/display distinction, adding real meaning. The required cloud_service parameter is not explained beyond its enum in the schema.

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 retrieval action for one attack scenario, including description, impact, and step-by-step composition, and pins lookup to the scenario_key from list_scenarios. The sentence 'A scenario runs several attacks in sequence; this returns every step' distinguishes it from attack-level detail tools.

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?

Implies use after list_scenarios by requiring the key from that tool, and clarifies this is for full scenario composition rather than a listing. It does not explicitly name when to prefer get_attack_details or how cloud_service affects the lookup.

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