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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that all scenarios run on one shared server-enforced seed, what gets written (comparison table plus trajectory chart rather than per-scenario data tabs), the return value (sheet URL), a rate constraint (same daily publish quota as sim_publish), and a cost model (1 token per scenario from the compute bucket). Annotations only mark it as a non-idempotent, open-world write; the description supplies the operational details an agent needs.

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, each carrying distinct payload: what it produces, how it runs scenarios, and its quota/cost constraints. Front-loaded with the primary action and zero filler.

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 two-parameter publishing tool with no output schema, the description covers output form (sheet URL), side effects (comparison table + chart), quota and token cost, and seed-sharing semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% (baseline 3), and the description adds interpretive meaning the schema does not: that the scenarios array is evaluated against one shared seed so differences reflect scenarios rather than random draws, and that sim_compare defaults backfill anything omitted. That context changes how an agent should construct the scenarios parameter.

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 (Publish) and resource (multi-scenario comparison into Google Sheets) and explicitly positions itself relative to two siblings: it is 'sim_compare's export' and 'the counterpart of sim_publish for a single scenario'. An agent can distinguish it from sim_compare and sim_publish 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 routing context by naming sim_compare (whose output this exports) and sim_publish (single-scenario alternative), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this when…' exclusion, so it is strong but not fully specified.

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