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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (structured answer plus markdown guide) and the dependency on other tools for parameter values, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and output, then give practical parameter guidance. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite not detailing the output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's content and usage context. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully explained, and the guidance on parameter sourcing makes the description complete for this simple read tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions with examples. The description adds extra meaning by explicitly instructing to use values from route_emergency or list_scenarios, which helps the agent source valid inputs and understand the relationship between tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one situation') with clear output content ('structured answer', 'complete step-by-step guide'). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing route_emergency and list_scenarios as sources for parameters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context on how to use the tool: it retrieves a single scenario using category and slug values from route_emergency or list_scenarios. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the implicit 'when you have the identifier' guidance is sufficient.

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