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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: scenario blast radius is cumulative across steps, the current catalog size is broken down by cloud provider, and the return values include scenarioName, scenarioKey, description, impact, and step composition. This is substantial behavioral detail for a read-only listing tool.

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 front-loaded with the core distinction and usage guidance, then efficiently covers counts, return fields, ID handling, and the sibling alternative. Despite being dense, every sentence provides actionable information and there is no filler.

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 still explains the returned fields clearly. Annotations cover the safety profile, the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description supplies the missing routing and return-shape context an agent needs.

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 100%, and the enum description already states that cloud_service selects the provider catalog. The description adds value by noting the current scenario counts per provider (AWS 26, Azure 12, GCP 7), giving the agent useful expectations about the result set for each enum value.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List ... attack scenarios') and immediately defines what a scenario is: a multi-step chain combining several attack actions. It explicitly distinguishes scenarios from single attacks by pointing to list_attacks, so an agent can route between the two siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to find a multi-step chain to run') and names the alternative ('use list_attacks instead for a single attack action'). It also clarifies downstream usage by saying scenarioKey, not scenarioName, should be passed to get_scenario_details or launch_scenario.

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