Get a scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the required PROFITLEE_API_TOKEN, which is an authentication constraint, and by detailing the return content (inputs and profit output). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds the auth requirement. It is front-loaded, has no redundant words, and every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, few annotations, output schema present) and the description covers purpose, auth, and return content. Sibling tools provide context for alternatives. No significant gaps remain.

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 'id' parameter is well-documented as a saved scenario id from list_scenarios or save_scenario. The description's mention of 'original calculator inputs and computed profit output' adds context about what the id refers to, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('one saved Profitlee scenario by id') along with what it includes ('original calculator inputs and computed profit output'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_scenarios (fetch all) and save_scenario/update_scenario/delete_scenario (mutations).

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 makes clear that this tool retrieves a single scenario by id, and the schema's parameter description adds that the id comes from list_scenarios or save_scenario, implying a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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