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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses cost ('Free'), ordering ('newest first'), pagination behavior ('next_offset is set when there may be more'), and scoping ('the studies you ran'). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling a list endpoint repeatedly.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then routing, then return shape. The one inefficiency is restating the field list twice — loosely in prose ('the question, mode, status, date, market...') and again as the returned object's keys.

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 supplies the full return shape including every key and the pagination fields. Combined with cost and ordering disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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%, so limit/offset meaning is already documented. The description still adds the pagination contract — that next_offset signals more pages — which is output semantics not conveyed by the input 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('List the studies you ran') plus scope ('newest first') and content ('the summary the web app's dashboard shows'). It is clearly separable from get_simulation, which fetches a single study by id.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it to find a sim_id for get_simulation, ask_followup, share_study, get_report_link, validate_study or record_outcome.' That names both the use case and the six downstream alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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