get_phishing_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a GET request (read-only) and that filtering, pagination, sorting, and includes are supported via query parameters. However, it omits auth requirements, error cases, and response-handling details.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the API pattern and parameter placement. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable. But the description does not clarify that a single scenario is fetched by ID, does not state that the ID is required, and gives no usage context relative to sibling tools. It is minimally viable for a simple GET, but not more.

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% and all three parameters are free-form objects, so the description must compensate. It adds useful placement guidance ('route IDs in path_params', 'filtering, pagination, sorting... in query'), but it never names specific parameter keys or explains the body parameter, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get phishing scenario details') and specifies the exact endpoint `GET /phishing-scenarios/{phishingScenarioId}`. This makes the tool's function unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list/get tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_phishing_scenarios or get_phishing_campaign_scenario. The only usage hint is where to place parameters, which is more parameter semantics than tool-selection guidance.

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