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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses important behavioral traits: simulations require an API key, cost BRRR after free runs, vary by draw number, and are scenario/risk simulations rather than forecasts. This is substantial context not available in the annotations or schema.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, lists output details compactly, explains the draw parameter, and covers auth/cost/interpretation. There is no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input semantics, output contents, authentication, cost behavior, scenario variability, and how to interpret results. An agent has everything needed to call and use the tool 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 100%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already says about symbol and draw. The added instruction to 'pass draw=N for a different set of 40 scenarios' mirrors the schema property text, so the description does not meaningfully go beyond the structured input definitions.

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 verb and resource: it provides simulated price scenarios for ONE crypto. It clearly enumerates the output elements (percentiles, horizons, share below today's price, 40 scenarios) and distinguishes this from a single-point forecast tool.

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 gives clear context for use: it requires a registered agent, explains the free tier and BRRR cost, and instructs that results should be presented as a range, never a single price target. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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