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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and closed-world hints. The description additionally reveals that the assets are 'simulated' and that the output includes start/end dates, which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. It does not go into detail about output ordering or data shape, but for a simple listing endpoint this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the tool's output, the second provides actionable guidance on when to call it. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the tool's purpose and relevance. It states what the endpoint can simulate talk about dates and directs the agent to use it before plan composition. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format, but the description is adequate for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter talk and instead focuses on the output's meaning. With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing missing in this dimension.

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 resource ('assets') and the action of listing them, and clarifies exactly what information is returned: the start and end dates of each simulated series. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_dca and compare_plans, which are clearly different operations.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before composing a plan, so start dates fall inside coverage. It provides a concrete precondition and use-case, but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses full exclusion guidance.

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