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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape (percentiles and per-item breakdown) and the triangular methodology, but it does not mention that results are stochastic, that a seed controls reproducibility, or that the operation has no side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action and domain, the second provides usage guidance and return-value summary. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of an output schema, the description appropriately discloses the main return values. It covers purpose, usage context, and output shape, and the schema covers parameters. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning randomness/reproducibility, but overall it is sufficient for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds useful context by clarifying the three-point estimate nature and the output percentiles, but it does not substantially extend the parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 three-point (triangular) Monte Carlo simulation over cost line items.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope, and the focus on cost estimates for quotes, budgets, or projects distinguishes it from the only sibling tool, retirement_drawdown.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use when a user needs a realistic range for a quote, budget or project cost instead of a single guess.' It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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