Get Scenario

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

The annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral details: scenario_id takes precedence over name, and it returns all input/result data rows. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a structured Args block. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences, but overall it's concise and well-organized.

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 tool, the description covers the lookup method, return content, and parameter precedence. The output schema handles return structure. However, it doesn't specify behavior when no arguments are provided or when a scenario is not found, which is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains both 'name' and 'scenario_id', including the precedence rule, fully compensating for the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('a scenario's metadata and all data rows'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scenarios or get_check. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to read a scenario's metadata and data rows, with lookup by name or ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only nature and specific resource make the use case clear.

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