Run the coordination model

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool runs a full simulation and returns utilization and gaps, but does not state whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires setup, which is a notable gap for a simulation tool.

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 two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence adds valuable context without bloat.

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 no annotations, the description mentions the return values but does not explain what 'the two gaps' are or disclose any side effects or prerequisites. This leaves ambiguity for an agent attempting to use the tool correctly.

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 75% (seed lacks a description), and the description does not compensate for that gap. It adds context about supply being constant but does not detail individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides, offering only marginal added value.

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 tool runs the proofmarket-sim engine over a full horizon for a coordination regime and returns utilization and two gaps. It distinguishes itself from operational siblings (market_state, submit_proof_request, etc.) by focusing on simulation of coordination regimes.

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 description provides clear context by noting that supply is identical across regimes and only coordination changes, implying the tool isolates coordination effects. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of full usage guidance.

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