simulate_plan

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does carry useful behavioral weight by explicitly declaring 'Does not write or pay money', which establishes a read-only, non-mutating profile. However it does not explain what 'bounded' means in practice (truncation or horizon limits), whether the projection is deterministic, or what the simulation assumes; 'months' defaulting to 600 hints at a cap that is never described.

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 with the core operation front-loaded and the strategy enumeration immediately after. The word 'bounded' is the only genuinely underspecified term that survives compression.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be described, and the read-only safety profile is covered. For a simulation tool with five parameters and a 0% schema coverage, though, the meaning of order, start, and months—and what the 600-month bound implies—is a real gap.

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 does so for two parameters by clarifying that budget is in major currency units (not cents) and by enumerating the legal strategy values, which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string. It says nothing about order, start, or months, leaving three of five parameters undocumented in both places.

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 concrete verb and resource: reads a bounded monthly payoff projection, and names the four supported strategy values. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling compare_strategies, which likely produces similar strategy comparisons, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to call this versus compare_strategies, upcoming_payments, or list_debts, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and the word 'projection' alone.

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