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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the server strips ID prefixes and matches only the numerical part, and both id families can be combined ('and/or'). It omits auth/permission needs, empty-result behavior, and pagination, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and identification mechanism, then the return payload, then usage. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (plan markdown, title, file path, linked user story ids, external source/system id) and the input-id semantics. It leaves out only secondary operational details like permission requirements and empty-result handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it explains scenarioOrdinalIds as the numeric part of TS-<n> and externalIds as TMS ids with prefix-stripping and concrete examples (C12345, PROJ-101). This fully documents both otherwise-undescribed parameters.

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 (Fetch) and resource (test scenarios) plus the keys used to identify them, so the tool's job is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. list-test-scenarios-for-scope) to distinguish itself from, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: 'when plan files are not yet synced to the repo, or when linking imported tests to scenarios by TMS id.' This implicitly routes the agent away from local-plan lookups, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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