simulate_swap_execution

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's added value is the tier gate and the authority endpoint (/api/v1/agent/status) an agent must satisfy before calling. That is real auth/precondition context beyond structured data. It does not say what happens on a failed simulation or how errors surface.

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 sentences, capability/tier metadata front-loaded, then compatibility guidance. No wasted clauses. The bracketed metadata is dense but justified as a precondition.

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?

Gating and alternative routing are well covered, but with no output schema an agent still gets nothing about what a simulation returns or what to do with the result. Undocumented parameters leave the call itself underspecified, so the definition is workable but incomplete.

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% and neither required parameter (intentId, walletAddress) is mentioned anywhere in the description. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it provides no format, source, or constraint hints. This is the weakest dimension.

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+resource — 'run the legacy mandatory swap simulation' — and names the modern equivalent (simulate_intent on a FarmDashIntent), so an agent can tell the two apart. The word 'legacy' plus the capability/tier prefix makes it slightly jargon-heavy, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes lifecycle-native agents to simulate_intent, which implies this tool is the compatibility path only. It also discloses a gate (tier scout_quote_signature_and_simulation_gated) before the call can succeed. It stops short of defining what qualifies an agent as 'legacy', so the routing condition still requires inference.

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