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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking criteria (feasibility, reward, constraint safety) but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only simulation, whether it mutates any state, whether it requires a world model, or what the output format is. For a simulation tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is a notable gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the ranking criteria are compactly listed. It earns its place, though it could add a second sentence on output or usage without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has 3 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema. The description doesn't explain what the output contains (ranked list? scores?), how 'dt' affects simulation, or what constraints are checked. For a simulation/ranking tool, an agent needs more 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 mentions 'candidate_actions' implicitly and 'state' is implied by simulation, but 'dt' (time step) is completely unexplained. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema property names already suggest.

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 states a specific verb ('Simulate and rank') and resource ('candidate actions') with clear criteria (feasibility, reward, constraint safety). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cognitive.predict_world_state (which predicts states, not actions) and cognitive.tree_search (which searches, not simulates/ranks). However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies usage: when you have candidate actions and need to rank them by feasibility/reward/safety. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like cognitive.tree_search or cognitive.simulate_actions (the dot variant). The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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