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

Annotations already establish the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: exactly which values come back, that nothing is created, queued, or budget-reserved, and that the estimate is an upper bound over the whole suite rather than a precise figure. That cost-model nuance is real context an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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 returned values, then scope semantics, then the safety statement. Every clause earns its place and there is no restatement of the name or title.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does so explicitly. For a simple three-parameter read-only tool it covers purpose, scope, side-effect profile, and return shape, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 only 33%; organization_id is documented but agent_id and suite_id are bare with no format, default, or scoping semantics supplied by the description. Worse, the only parameter-like name it mentions (scenario_ids) is not a parameter of this tool at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap and may send the agent looking for a non-existent field.

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 (preview) and resource (a simulation run) and enumerates the concrete outputs: attempt counts, estimated spend, model-call ceiling, and supported_runners. It also implicitly separates itself from start_simulation_run by emphasizing that no run is created, so an agent can distinguish it from the write sibling without opening either schema.

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 clear context for when this is the right call (a pre-flight cost/feasibility check) and explains the whole-suite upper-bound semantics versus a scenario_ids-confined run. It never names start_simulation_run as the alternative or states an explicit 'do not use when', so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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