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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the 'Read' verb. The description adds the concrete file location (reference-apps/<scenario>/role-policy-matrix.md), which is useful context, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., missing file/scenario) or return format.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the resource and source path front-loaded and no filler. It is short enough that nothing is wasted, though the brevity contributes to the guidance gaps noted elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and the description hints at the returned artifact (a role-policy matrix markdown). With no output schema, however, it should say more about what the returned content contains or how errors surface.

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 single 'name' parameter already enumerates the eight available scenario names, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes the parameter as '<scenario>' in the path template, adding no syntax or validation detail beyond 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 verb (Read) and resource (scenario role-policy matrix) plus the exact source path, so an agent knows what is retrieved. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like tide_scenario_manifest or tide_scenario, though the 'role-policy matrix' resource is distinctive enough to infer.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tide_scenario_manifest, nor any prerequisites (e.g., scenario must be scaffolded first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name.

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