Emergency Scenario: List_active_emergency_scenarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'active' filter dynamic and says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or freshness of 'active' status, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not cover returns, and parameters are fully schema-documented. However, for a list tool with a near-identical sibling, the missing disambiguation from List_emergency_scenarios leaves a real gap for correct tool selection.

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 both parameters (offset, pageSize) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and a max. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('emergency scenarios') with a scope qualifier ('currently active'). It is understandable on its own, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling List_emergency_scenarios, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this is the filtered or unfiltered variant.

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 'currently active' phrasing implies usage (use when you want only active scenarios), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative named. The obvious alternative, List_emergency_scenarios, is left for the agent to infer.

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