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

With no annotations provided, the description was the only chance to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or return format. It discloses none of these—only a list of scenario names, which provides no insight into the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It consists of a single phrase and a list of scenario names without any explanatory structure. It does not earn its place as a meaningful descriptor.

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?

This tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry substantial contextual weight. It fails completely: no purpose, no parameter semantics, no usage context, and no behavioral detail. The tool is effectively undescribed.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema for any parameter. The scenario values are already listed in the schema, while 'days' and 'entity_id' remain completely unexplained. No compensation for the low coverage.

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 says 'What-if:' and lists scenario names, suggesting hypothetical scenario forecasting, but it lacks a clear verb or resource to explain what the tool actually does. It does not explicitly state whether it simulates, predicts, or assesses risk, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like risk_forecast or predict_score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., risk_forecast, trend_analysis, predict_entity). The description gives no context for choosing scenario_forecast over alternatives.

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