simulate_yield_strategy

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's added value is the null-preservation rule ('missing rates/costs remain null'), the guarantee that hypothetical yields never enter observed totals, and the WAIT gating condition — all genuinely beyond structured fields. The capability/tier/API/authority prefix also hints at the required authority endpoint, though it is opaque jargon rather than actionable guidance.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core capability before the null/WAIT caveats. The bracketed tier and authority metadata is somewhat noisy for an agent, but it is confined to a short prefix rather than spread through the body.

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 and 8 parameters including nested cost and pool-identity objects, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden. It covers null handling and the WAIT outcome but says nothing about what a non-WAIT result contains (alternative rankings, per-pool all-in economics), leaving an agent to guess the payload.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the scenario-costs and exact-identity semantics but largely restates what the schema already documents ('missing mandatory costs force WAIT', 'excluded from observed yield'), adding no format or syntax detail beyond it.

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: read-only independent yield alternatives with exact pool, chain and asset identities, which separates it from the simulation siblings that target intents or swaps. It does not explicitly name the nearest alternative (compare_yields) so an agent must infer the boundary from scope.

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 gating sentence 'Returns WAIT analysis-only until wallet, policy, route, freshness and all-in economics are verified' implies this is a pre-execution what-if tool rather than a recommendation engine. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as compare_yields, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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