get_scenario_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses response contents, field-by-field meaning, the NaN/null risk, mandatory preprocessing before passing data downstream, and the consequence of ignoring the warning.

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 well-organized with a summary, an important usage block, a response-fields note, a warning, and parameter definitions. Despite substantial content, it is front-loaded and every section earns its place; no filler or vague language.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete. It covers purpose, prerequisite usage, return fields, parameter semantics, an edge-case warning, and downstream integration details. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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. It describes model_hash as 'Hash of a completed model' and periods_forward as 'Number of future periods to generate (default 12),' adding domain meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a forward-period scenario template from a completed model.' It clearly enumerates what the response contains and positions the tool as a prerequisite for run_scenario and run_optimizer, which distinguishes it from sibling 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?

States explicitly 'IMPORTANT: Always call this before run_scenario or run_optimizer' and then lists exactly what to discover and how to use those values downstream. This gives an agent unambiguous when-to-use guidance and prevents misuse.

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