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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context by identifying the local simulation model and citing Collins et al. 2005, and reinforces that no network call is made, though it does not discuss computational cost or model limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core simulation purpose, then covers expected outputs, use-case routing, and local execution. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 the rich input schema, annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the tool's purpose, scope, alternative, and local behavior without needing to restate return-value 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already well documented in the input schema, including presets, ranges, defaults, and physical meanings. The description itself does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('asteroid impact'), then enumerates the key outputs such as energy, air burst or crater, blast/heat/earthquake radii, local effects, and impact frequency. It also distinguishes this simulator from the real-time asteroid sibling by naming neo_watch.

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 explicitly states the intended use case ('what if' questions) and names the alternative for a different use case: 'for real asteroids passing today use neo_watch.' This gives clear routing guidance between related tools.

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