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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, rounding to 2 decimals, decimal convention for rates/premiums, the 1000-100000 iteration constraint, that foreign-method parameters are accepted and ignored, and the error contract for unknown methods or missing required params.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and method routing, then a compact per-method parameter block. It is dense rather than bloated, but the per-method parameter listing partly restates the schema and adds length; still, nearly every clause carries actionable 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?

For an 11-parameter, four-method tool with nested objects, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: method selection, per-method inputs, defaults, constraints, and error behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully exceeds it by mapping each method to its required/optional parameters and stating defaults and cross-method tolerance. It does not add syntax details for nested structures like tree or distributions beyond what the schema provides, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Names the specific resource (uncertainty/sensitivity analysis) and enumerates the four methods (monte_carlo, monte_carlo_sensitivity, decision_tree, sensitivity_analysis), each with a one-line characterization. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling class ('For a single deterministic point value use the relevant valuation tool'), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('quantify and stress the uncertainty around a point valuation'), when-not ('for a single deterministic point value use the relevant valuation tool'), and the nearest alternative ('sensitivity_analysis varies one parameter of a core function only'). It also states per-method requirements, which effectively tells the agent which method to pick for a given input set.

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