simulate_mee_intent

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that the result is non-authoritative, that it is preparation-only, and that a coordinator gate blocks submission — meaningful constraints. It does not explain why readOnlyHint=false for a preview call, which would help an agent understand that this is a state-touching prepare endpoint.

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?

Core sentence is front-loaded and tight, with the submission constraint immediately following. The bracketed capability/tier/API/authority prefix is routing metadata that costs tokens but is not wasteful enough to hurt readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the preview returns (fee/fill/slippage fields, success vs blocked outcome). It only says 'economics', leaving the agent to guess the return shape, though the gate/submission semantics are adequately covered.

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?

The single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never says what it identifies (intent id, template, session?). 'Declared-input' hints at the payload shape but is not tied to the parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Preview declared-input cross-chain economics for a MEE-shaped intent.' An agent can tell this is the simulation counterpart to create_mee_intent/submit_mee_intent, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The clause 'cannot be submitted while the coordinator gate is disabled' implies preparation-stage use, but it never states when to choose this over the nearby simulate_intent or create_mee_intent, nor what prerequisites the caller must satisfy first.

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