Calculate simulation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, giving some safety context. The description adds minimal behavioral context by flagging '[Premium]' (suggesting access control) and describing the engine, but it does not disclose potential side effects, output format, or any rate limits—leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the premium tag and clearly states the action and target. It is economical with words and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the premium requirement from the functional description.

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?

The description is thin for a computation tool that lacks an output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns or how the result is presented (e.g., stored, returned directly). With a complex nested request object and openWorldHint=true, the description should at least mention the response shape or outcome, but it remains silent.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'request', already labeling it as 'The calculation request payload'. The tool description repeats this concept ('request payload') without adding syntactic or format details, so it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action ('Run') and the resource ('reform/recalculation engine'), with the input ('request payload'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_simulation (retrieve) and add_simulation (create), as it emphasizes computation rather than storage or retrieval.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools such as add_simulation or get_simulation, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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