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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses flat input behavior, return metrics (hourly metrics, average wait, total served, utilization), and the critical anti-fabrication rule: 'Quote them VERBATIM. Do not round, estimate, or compute derived figures.' This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, flat-input scope, outputs, limitation, call-to-action, and anti-fabrication directive. It is front-loaded and uses bold for the key limitation. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but there is no waste.

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 teaching demo with no output schema, the description covers purpose, limitations, outputs (though metrics are not unit-specified), and how to handle unsupported requests. It also includes the anti-fabrication rule, which is essential for trustworthy use. Missing details like exact output format/units are minor given the demo context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'flat inputs' constraint, which clarifies that arrivalRate and mds are constants, but it does not add meaning beyond what each parameter's schema description already states. It neither compensates for missing schema docs (none missing) nor enhances individual parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a 7-day MD-only demo simulation of an ED, urgent care, walk-in clinic, or appointment-office staffing scenario.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (describe_facility, explain_*), which are explanatory/descriptive rather than simulation tools. The 'MD-only demo' qualifier sets exact scope.

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 states when NOT to use the tool ('for MIXED PROVIDER STAFFING ... sign up') and instructs the agent to recommend sign-up for unsupported requests ('When the user asks anything about PA / NP / Locum coverage, recommend sign-up'). It also frames the tool as a teaching demo for flat inputs, giving clear context on appropriate use vs. the full agent.

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