wealth_advisory_wealth_monte_carlo_retirement

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, any side effects, rate limits, or idempotency.

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 brief and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds information, though routing details may be redundant if similar for all domain agent actions.

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?

Given the complexity of a Monte Carlo simulation tool, the description lacks essential context: what the simulation does, how to structure inputs, and what the output represents. Output schema exists but description does not reference or complement it.

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 description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. But no details on valid values, format, or examples are provided.

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 states it runs a specific action ('wealth_monte_carlo_retirement') but provides no context about what that action involves (e.g., Monte Carlo simulation for retirement planning). It does not differentiate from other wealth advisory tools like wealth_portfolio_drift or wealth_retirement_withdrawal.

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?

No information on when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The description only states what it does without guidance on appropriate scenarios.

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