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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that it performs matching, which is consistent. It provides limited additional behavioral detail beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

A single sentence of 16 words, directly stating the tool's purpose with no redundancy. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., scenario name or identifier), leaving an agent without output expectations. Given no output schema and a single input parameter, it is minimally adequate but could be improved by clarifying the return value.

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% with a clear description and example for the 'situation' parameter. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool matches a user request to a known scenario pattern, providing a specific verb and resource. It hints at a pipeline role ('before falling back') but does not explicitly distinguish from closely related siblings like 'tide_choose_playbook' or 'tide_list_scenarios'.

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 usage when you have a user request and need to find a scenario, with fallback to generic playbooks. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives among siblings.

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