simulate_montecarlo

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds specifics: each call re-samples (non-idempotent), capped at 2000 iterations free. No contradiction.

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?

Single concise paragraph, front-loaded with core functionality, then usage, alternative, behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers all essentials: 6 distributions, parameter requirements, non-idempotence, free tier cap. Output schema exists for return values, so no need to detail them.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. Description adds meaning by noting required keys depend on distribution and specifying defaults (1000) and limits (2000 free).

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?

Description starts with a specific verb+resource ('Sample N draws from a parametric distribution') and clearly lists returned outputs. It provides concrete use cases and distinguishes from sibling tool analyze_risk.

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 states when to use (quantify uncertainty around a single random factor) and when not to (multi-asset portfolio, use analyze_risk). Mentions behavioral details like non-idempotent and free tier cap.

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