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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the exact operating-cash formula, that fees are read live from the vault, that exit value and round-trip cost are estimated, and the named blockers (Crash Shield, redemption cooldown, ETH for the exit). The closing caveat that GBLIN is crypto exposure rather than cash or yield is a genuine behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 purpose and the read-only guarantee are front-loaded, and the middle enumerates plan contents efficiently. The single sentence is dense and becomes run-on, but each clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer from an output schema.

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 five-parameter, read-only simulation tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything missing: the derivation of operating cash, the scope of the simulation, and the risk caveat about GBLIN. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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, but the description adds relational meaning the schema cannot: operating cash = max(reserve_usd, daily_burn_usd × days), and that trial_usdc simulates alongside the surplus using the 100 USDC default. It clarifies how the parameters interact rather than just restating them.

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 ('turns idle USDC into a reviewable plan in one call') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling simulations by naming exactly what the plan contains (operating cash, surplus, mint simulation, trial, blockers). An agent can tell this apart from treasury.quote or treasury.state without opening either 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 description gives clear context for when this applies — idle USDC above operating cash — and states 'Read-only: nothing is executed and nothing is advised,' which frames the decision-support role. It does not explicitly name when to prefer treasury.quote or treasury.state instead, so the alternative routing is implied rather than stated.

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