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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what output format is expected, or any limitations (e.g., TIBER-EU only). It only describes the content domain, not the behavioral traits, so the agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's side effects or return value.

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?

The description is two short sentences and front-loads the core concept. No wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to convey the return type and context. It provides the context (DORA planning) but does not state what the returned scenarios look like or how many are returned. This is a moderate gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including default values and allowed values for 'focus'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as TIBER-EU threat scenarios for DORA resilience testing, and the mention of 'Banking-specific attack simulations' distinguishes it from sibling tools like dora_calendar and threat_actors. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'list'), making the intended operation slightly implicit. Still, the purpose is specific and 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 states the context ('for DORA resilience testing planning') and the banking focus, which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clear use case is sufficient for a 4.

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