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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the source is a markdown file at a known repo path, but it says nothing about the multi-part response behavior or what the summary contains, which is a missed opportunity given the lower bar set by 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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with a nuanced multi-part return behavior.

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, so the description does not need to enumerate return values, but it also never characterizes what a 'scenario summary' is or how it relates to the sibling scenario tools. For a simple read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the content and its relationship to alternatives.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'name' (with its full enumeration of valid scenarios) and 'part' are already fully documented in the schema. The description's path pattern loosely reinforces the 'name' param but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('scenario summary') and even names the backing file path (reference-apps/<scenario>/scenario.md). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like tide_scenario_manifest, tide_scenario_roles, or tide_list_scenarios, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against the many sibling scenario tools (tide_list_scenarios, tide_choose_scenario, tide_scenario_manifest). The only routing hint is implicit in the schema's 'part' parameter, which is not usage guidance.

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