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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that all scenarios are evaluated against the same versioned formula (results are internally consistent) and that there is a five-scenario ceiling, but says nothing about cost, latency, or partial-failure behavior when one scenario is invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the key scope facts first. It is efficient, but arguably undersized for a tool whose schema is entirely undocumented, so brevity here trades off against completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a tool with two undocumented parameters including a nested scenario object with pricing semantics, the definition leaves too much to inference. Missing guidance on scenario naming, value key expectations, and what happens when scenarios exceed five.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does not. It adds one real constraint absent from the schema (max five scenarios) and implies a shared calculatorId across scenarios, but never explains the calculatorId enum, the shape of scenario 'values', or the pricing sub-fields (marginMode, vatPercent, contingencyPercent).

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 pair ('runs and compares') and resource ('scenarios'), plus a concrete cap of five and the constraint that all scenarios share one versioned formula. This distinguishes it reasonably from single-run siblings like run_calculation, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies comparison usage but gives no explicit when-to-use versus run_calculation or prepare_calculation, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the multi-scenario variant rather than being told.

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