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 source path, implying it returns the contents of a markdown file, but says nothing about format, auth, or behavior on a missing scenario. A 3 reflects modest added value beyond 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 the verb first and no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though the path placeholder is slightly redundant with the schema.

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?

For a simple read-only tool the core is present, and the source path hints at the return content. However, with no output schema and no statement of what a missing scenario yields, minor gaps remain.

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 name parameter already lists all valid scenario values. The description's <scenario> placeholder merely echoes the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 bootstrap sequence), with the source path reference-apps/<scenario>/bootstrap-sequence.md clarifying what is read. It is fairly distinguishable from siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with tide_scenario or tide_scenario_manifest which read other scenario files.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The agent must infer when to call this versus tide_scenario or tide_scenario_manifest.

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