catalog_get_scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond the raw HTTP path — no note about what a notification scenario contains, whether missing IDs 404, or any response characteristics, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the raw 'GET /notification/api/scenarios/{id}' line largely duplicates the annotation title, so it spends budget on redundancy rather than on information the agent lacks.

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 read-only fetch with fully documented parameters this is nominally enough to invoke it, but with no output schema the description should at least indicate what is returned, especially given the unexplained expandBody behavior.

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 100% and both parameters (id, expandBody) are documented in the schema itself; the description contributes no additional meaning such as accepted ID formats or when to set expandBody, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and a resource ('notification scenarios'), so the basic purpose is inferable, but the plural phrasing conflicts with the single-ID-by-path semantics and nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like catalog_get_scenario_config or catalog_get_all_scenario_configs.

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 at all on when to use this versus the scenario-config siblings or the collection-level tools; the agent must infer usage from the path template alone.

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