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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses determinism ("Pure deterministic; same inputs produce a byte-identical result"), cost (1 credit), and points to the catalog endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, requires special permissions, or what the exact response structure is. The deterministic and cost details add value, but the absence of side-effect or permission disclosure is a gap.

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?

The description is four sentences, all informative: purpose, inputs/outputs, catalog reference, and cost/determinism details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds distinct value; however, it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 a tool with four nested parameters and no output schema, the description explains the high-level output (apportioned shares individually and in composite) and provides the catalog endpoint. It lacks a detailed output format example or edge-case guidance, but the deterministic and cost information, combined with the clear input/output description, makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping parameters ("verdict + fourFactorScoring + agents and a list of remediation IDs") and explaining that remediations come from the FK-METHOD-2026-003 catalog and cite statutes/standards. This complements the schema but does not substantially elevate semantic understanding beyond what the property descriptions already provide.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: "Counterfactual remediation simulator" that takes a certificate's verdict, fourFactorScoring, agents, and remediation IDs to return apportioned shares. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on simulating remediation outcomes rather than verification or other functions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when needing to simulate counterfactual remediation outcomes from a certificate's verdict and scoring. It also gives a prerequisite (GET /api/v2/remediation/catalog for IDs) and mentions cost parity with verify_certificate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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