get_phishing_campaign_scenario

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

Calls out that it invokes GET, which strongly implies a read-only non-mutating operation, and mentions query-level filtering/pagination/sorting behavior. With no annotations, however, the full burden falls on the description, so the lack of any auth, error, or side-effect context leaves a residual gap. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences exist with the core purpose and routing rule placed immediately. The phrase 'filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query' is slightly awkward, but the description is compact and does not repeat schema fields. It earns its place without filler.

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 simple single-resource GET with an output schema already available, the description covers the main call shape and where to place parameters. It does not, however, list exact query options, declare the required ID parameter clearly, or differentiate from related sibling retrievers, so it is only minimally sufficient. Body and auth behavior are also left unaddressed.

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 input schema is generic open objects with 0% description coverage, so the description is the only place telling the agent where parameters belong. It usefully separates route IDs into path_params and filter/pagination/sorting/include values into query, but it does not name exact parameter keys or address the body parameter. This is partial compensation for an otherwise empty schema.

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 states the tool retrieves a single campaign-scenario's details and names the exact GET endpoint. It is easy to tell apart from list_phishing_campaign_scenarios because 'get' implies retrieval of one item. It does not explicitly separate itself from get_phishing_campaign_scenario_campaign or get_phishing_campaign_scenario_scenario, but those sibling names indicate different related resources.

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 routing mechanics (put route IDs in path_params, put filtering/pagination/sorting in query), but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as list_phishing_campaign_scenarios or get_phishing_campaign_scenario_campaign. No exclusions, prerequisites, or 'use this instead of...' statements are present.

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