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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions date clamping and lists return values, but does not state whether the operation is read-only (simulation is non-destructive) or any required permissions. While it covers core behavior, it lacks some safety context.

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 sentences front-load the purpose and return values, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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?

Given 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, return values, and date clamping edge case. It is nearly complete for a simulation tool, missing only error handling or validation details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. It lists return values but no parameter meaning enrichment.

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 clearly states it simulates dollar-cost averaging using a specific engine and historical data. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_method and list_assets, which are about retrieving method info and asset lists, not simulation.

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 explains what the tool does and returns, and mentions date clamping. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Siblings are sufficiently different to imply usage, leaving minimal ambiguity.

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