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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the precise sequence (replays first, derives stable candidate ID, repeats deterministic review, preserves criteria as hard gates, publishes omitted failure modes) and lists all non-actions. This is exceptional transparency for a complex compiler tool.

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 two sentences, with the core action and required inputs front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence packs multiple non-goals efficiently without redundancy. It is dense but not overly long, and every phrase carries information. Structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with 7 complex parameters and an output schema, the description provides a solid high-level context: the input requirements, the internal process, and the boundaries of responsibility. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to call it correctly. It does not delve into every parameter's nuances, but given the output schema exists and the description is already substantial, it is sufficiently complete for effective invocation.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does mention high-level roles of the 7 parameters (e.g., 'simulation-eligible source-bound material evidence matching the modulus', 'source freshness', 'physical validation plan') and clarifies the requirement for exactness of the validation receipt. However, it does not explain individual parameter structure or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. It adds some semantic value but leaves room for improvement given the low coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Compile') and a precise resource ('replay-verified rectangular-beam derivation into a prepared bounded simulation study'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like prepare_simulation_study and run_bounded_simulation_study. It states the input requirement and the compilation workflow, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

It lists all required caller-supplied inputs and explicitly enumerates what the tool never does ('never chooses material or objective, verifies physical truth, runs a solver, stores data, contacts a supplier, or grants physical authority'). This gives clear exclusions and helps an agent decide when NOT to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases. The guidance is strong but could be more pointed.

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