Meridian.Budget.Optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: 'Read-only (recommends only)' establishes the safety profile and 'may run posterior simulations' signals potentially expensive/non-deterministic compute. It omits what happens when the model is unfitted, expected runtime, and whether results are reproducible.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the safety/compute caveat. The fragmentary phrasing ('Optimal per-channel allocation…') is terse but not wasteful.

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 output schema relieves the need to describe return values, but with zero annotation coverage and undocumented parameters, the description should state the fitted-model prerequisite, the meaning of total_budget, and the practical cost of posterior simulations. Those gaps matter for a compute-heavy optimization call.

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 compensate. It names total_budget but gives no units, valid range, or currency, and leaves model_id undefined—an agent must guess that it must reference an output of meridian.fit.

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 (optimal allocation) and resource (per-channel budget) scoped to a fitted MMM and a total_budget. An agent can tell this is a budget-optimization call rather than a report, but the description never names the sibling it contrasts with (e.g. meridian.roi.by_channel or meridian.fit).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named among the meridian.* siblings. The phrase 'under a fitted MMM' implies a fitted model is a prerequisite, but that is left to inference rather than stated.

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