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

Annotations only tell the agent it is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds genuinely new context that the scores and token-budget deltas are modeled estimates rather than measured LLM execution. That caveat materially changes how an agent should trust the results. It still does not say what state, if any, is mutated or what the call returns, which keeps it below 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the experimental/simulation tag so the agent sees the most decision-relevant fact first. Dense terminology costs some readability, but nothing is redundant padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the important work of telling the agent the outputs are modeled estimates, which is exactly the caveat that would otherwise be missing. For a 4-parameter simulation tool this is close to complete; only the side effects of 'summoning' clones remain unstated.

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 schema already documents edict, clones, peer, and archetype. The description only adds marginal value by grouping the four archetype values conceptually; it gives no extra syntax or format detail beyond the schema's examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run a deterministic Rayon stack-codon cohort simulation') and names the four archetypes it evaluates, so an agent learns what actually happens. The jargon is heavy, but the bracketed '[Experimental / Simulation]' tag disambiguates it from real dispatch tools. It never names a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation stays implicit.

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 '[Experimental / Simulation]' prefix implies this is for experimental what-if evaluation rather than production execution, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over sutra.cast, chohan.settle, or economy_chohan_roll, all of which appear to touch overlapping codon/Cho-Han concepts.

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