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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the scenario is temporary, reported facts/guidance/revision stay unchanged, limitations must be preserved, and user assumptions are identified. This meaningfully explains what mutates and what does not, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 four short sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, the prerequisite is stated immediately after, and the caveats are grouped at the end. Every sentence contributes new, useful information.

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?

The description is largely complete given the rich annotations and output schema: it explains the tool's purpose, prerequisites, limitations, and non-persistent nature. Minor ambiguities remain about what 'preserve limitations' means operationally and how invalid or excessive overrides are handled, but these do not block correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does clarify the overrides parameter: assumption cell IDs, numerical values, published units, and the 1-20 count limit. However, symbol and revision are not individually explained, leaving some burden on the agent to infer their meaning from the tool's domain context.

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 names a specific operation ('Calculate a temporary scenario') and the resource ('1-20 assumption cell IDs and numerical values'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_file, check_company_forecasts, and compare_company_revisions. It also immediately clarifies that this is a temporary, non-persistent scenario run.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Read get_company_file first') and states that no recommendation or valuation is implied, which tells the agent when not to use this tool for advisory conclusions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context strongly implies this is for hypothetical scenario exploration rather than forecast checking or historical comparison.

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