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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and "Changes nothing" is consistent with them. Beyond that, the description discloses real domain semantics: each edge nets a debt, direction is debtor-owes-creditor, and `cleared` is the amount to cancel in the smallest unit — context the annotations cannot supply.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the edge semantics, then the side-effect disclaimer. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

The high-level return is described (validity plus what would clear), which partly compensates for the absent output schema, and the nested edge shape is explained. However, for a simulation tool with no output schema, it omits what an invalid proposal looks like (revert/error vs boolean field) and leaves the epoch parameter unexplained, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does well on the nested edge fields (debtor/creditor/cleared, including the decimal-string smallest-unit convention that the bare pattern `^\d{1,38}$` does not convey), but says nothing about `epoch` — its meaning, valid range, or whether unknown/future epochs are accepted.

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 names a specific verb (simulate/ask) and resource (clearing for an epoch) and clarifies it is a dry-run query against the `simulate_clearing` view returning validity and amounts. It is clearly distinct from all listed siblings (overview, epoch_report, member_inspect, order_status, search_listings) by domain, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

"Changes nothing" implies this is a pre-flight check, which is useful usage context, but the description never states when to call it versus what it precedes or replaces. No prerequisites, no mention of any real clearing/submission path, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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