load_sandbox_scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's 'Deterministic dictionary lookup; read-only with no side effects' largely restates those annotations rather than adding new behavioral context such as error behavior for unknown names.

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?

Header-based structure with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. Slightly more verbose than needed for a one-parameter lookup, but every section is short and purposeful.

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 deterministic lookup with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, routing, and behavior adequately. An agent has everything needed to select and 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 100% and the single 'name' parameter already carries an example ('clean_match'). The description only echoes 'named scenario' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 specific verb and resource ('Load expected and observed record inputs') plus the scope qualifier 'for a named sandbox scenario'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_sandbox_scenario and list_sandbox_scenarios.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use bullets (reviewing fixtures, creating custom variations) and when-NOT-to-use bullets that name the alternative tool to use instead (run_sandbox_scenario). Nothing is left to inference.

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