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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention session lifecycle (e.g., that end_sdac_session exists), side effects, statefulness, or what happens after creation. The description only gives purpose and cost savings, leaving the agent uninformed about consequences.

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 with no fluff, the primary action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's role. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple session-creation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits how the session integrates with sibling tools (run_sdac_trial, end_sdac_session) and what constitutes a successful outcome. Adequate but with room to improve.

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% for the only parameter (auth_token), which is thoroughly described. The description adds no additional parameter insights, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the semantics.

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 verb and resource ('Start a simulation session') and clearly explains its purpose: testing EE combinations at low cost before creating real decisions. This distinguishes it from create_decision and other sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool ('before creating real decisions') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like create_ise_session. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the testing use case, though it could be more explicit.

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