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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Nothing is sent or stored' confirms the simulation has zero external side effects, and 'Flows are included from the Growth plan' is a plan-gating constraint absent from annotations. It does not disclose input limits (60 items) or the response shape, but the safety and access profile is unusually well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the safety guarantee and the plan gate. No sentence is redundant.

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 read-only simulation tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers behavior, side effects, prerequisite source of the graph, and plan access. It slightly under-delivers on what the result looks like ('where it would stop' is gestured at but not specified).

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 67%, and the schema already documents graph as 'as in get_flow' and explains the start/reply/wait input types. The description reinforces the 'scripted conversation' framing for inputs but says nothing about the platform parameter or defaults, so it adds only marginal value over the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a flow's steps ... against a scripted conversation') and immediately ties it to the sibling that produces its input ('the graph get_flow returns'). An agent can tell this apart from get_flow, test_rule, and the list tools without opening any schema.

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 reference to 'the graph get_flow returns' establishes the prerequisite workflow (fetch the flow first, then simulate it), which is real usage guidance. It does not name an explicit when-not-to-use condition or contrast with test_rule, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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