company_simulate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: 'Executes nothing.' 'JSON' also hints at the response format. It could offer more detail about error behavior or what 'standard synthetic scenario' produces, but for an annotation-less tool the disclosed safety profile is meaningful.

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?

The description is extremely compact: one sentence plus two fragments ('JSON.' and 'Executes nothing.'). Every token either identifies the action, lists concrete scenario options, or clarifies behavior/output. No filler exists.

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 the return format is covered elsewhere, and 'Executes nothing' covers the key safety aspect. Still, the description leaves bundle_json content/format unexplained and provides no sibling-selection guidance, so an agent might struggle to invoke it correctly in an unfamiliar context.

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 add value by listing valid scenario values and tying the 'bundle's operating plan' to bundle_json. However, it does not explain what bundle_json should contain, its expected format, or how it relates to the scenario parameter, leaving a required parameter partially opaque.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Run' and a specific resource: 'a standard synthetic scenario ... against the bundle's operating plan.' Enumerating scenario names (steady_state, aggressive_reallocation, cash_squeeze, close_failure) adds concrete specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from other simulate-style sibling tools such as simulate_business_workflow.

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 phrase 'Executes nothing' gives an implicit safety context, suggesting this is appropriate when a non-side-effect simulation is needed. But the description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or explicitly mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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