Simulate the usage of a routing plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the appended 'Read-only' is redundant rather than additive. The description contributes nothing beyond annotations, e.g., whether the simulation is a true dry-run with no side effects, whether it consumes quota, or what the result represents.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, endpoint and safety hint placed after. No filler, though the brevity comes at the cost of leaving the simulation output unexplained.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers parameters, so the remaining burden on the description is small. Still, with no output schema, the description should say what the simulation returns (e.g., the evaluated routing path or matched targets), which is the single most important thing an agent needs to interpret results.

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 schema documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, notably leaving the ambiguous 'time' query parameter (what instant/format the simulation evaluates) undefined.

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 ('Simulate the usage of a routing plan') and includes the underlying endpoint, which distinguishes it from the sibling placetel_get_routing_plan (config read vs. dry-run evaluation). However, it never explains what a 'simulation' produces, leaving the resource's behavior partly opaque.

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 statement of when to choose this over placetel_get_routing_plan, placetel_list_routing_plan_routings, or placetel_list_routings, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb 'simulate'.

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