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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a Monte Carlo simulation, that output is educational only, and that assumptions (real returns, annual steps) are included. It does not mention nondeterminism or the role of seed, but for a pure simulation tool this is mostly adequate.

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 tight sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second adds the critical educational caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and important constraints are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values itself; it does so by naming probability, end-balance percentiles, and assumptions. The educational-output disclaimer is also included. It could be more explicit about output format and reproducibility, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters. The description conceptually maps portfolio, annualSpend, years, and equityPct but adds no detail about seed, iterations, ranges, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Monte Carlo retirement drawdown simulation.' It enumerates inputs (portfolio, annual spending, horizon, equity allocation) and outputs (probability of lasting, percentiles, assumptions). However, it does not differentiate from sibling monte_carlo_estimate, so an agent cannot immediately tell which tool to choose.

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?

Provides clear context: output is educational only and must always be presented with assumptions and disclaimer. This is useful usage guidance. But it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over monte_carlo_estimate or state any exclusions.

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