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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the simulation uses real historical closes and the returned share_url reopens the same run in the app, which is not visible in structured metadata.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose first and the return contract second. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough high-level output shape (totals, checkpoints, share_url) and the schema covers parameter semantics. It falls short of a 5 only because it does not explicitly connect to alternatives or call out conditional Pro-only behavior in the description itself.

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?

With 91% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents most parameters (asset, amount, start_date, frequency, settings, etc.). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates for gaps nor detracts from what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific action–resource pair: simulate one dollar-cost-averaging plan against real historical closes. The word 'one' sets it apart from the sibling plan-comparison tool, and the output summary (totals, checkpoints, share_url) leaves no doubt about what it does.

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 use case is implied: run a single DCA simulation when you want plan results. However, the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer compare_plans, data_status, or list_assets, so an agent is left to infer the boundary.

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