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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape — 'ordered steps with the forms, offices and links involved' — which is meaningful given there is no output schema.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core purpose, but the entire slug enumeration duplicates the schema enum word-for-word and consumes most of the text. The first sentence is also a bare noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough: the scenario space, the ordered-step return content, and the supporting artifacts (forms, offices, links). It omits what happens when slug is absent (schema marks zero required parameters), which is a minor but real gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's parenthetical slug list merely restates the enum verbatim, adding no syntax, default, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Returns ordered steps' for a named 'veteran scenario'), so an agent knows this yields a curated playbook rather than search results or eligibility checks. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as search_veteran_resources or check_eligibility, which is the only gap.

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?

Enumerating the six scenario slugs implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative for overlapping needs (e.g., eligibility or form lookup). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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