list_phishing_scenarios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and the general parameter placement, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. The output schema exists but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the endpoint.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds practical routing guidance without excessive detail. It is concise and every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter mapping.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 generic parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description provides the essential endpoint and parameter placement but lacks details on valid path parameters, query options, and response behavior. It is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves gaps that an agent might need to resolve by inspecting the output schema or making trial calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three generic parameters (body, query, path_params). It does clarify that path_params holds route IDs and query holds filtering/pagination/sorting/include values, which is helpful, but it does not explain what specific route IDs are valid, what filters are supported, or what the body parameter is for. The schema itself is generic with additionalProperties, so the description only partially compensates.

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 and resource: 'List phishing scenarios' and explicitly names the HTTP endpoint `GET /phishing-scenarios`. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `list_account_phishing_scenarios` and `get_phishing_scenario` by focusing on the top-level collection, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 some usage guidance by specifying where to put route IDs (path_params) and filtering/pagination/sorting/include values (query). However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_account_phishing_scenarios` or `get_phishing_scenario`, leaving the selection context implicit.

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