simulate

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral traits: integration method overrides model setting to Euler, and a required dependency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., saving CSV) or whether the tool modifies the model state. Overall adequate but not thorough given the mutation hint.

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 three short sentences: core function, dependency, integration method. All information is relevant and efficiently presented. No wasted words, and the most important purpose appears first.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the essential return type (downsampled time series with summaries) and a key behavioral detail (Euler integration). It could elaborate on the format of the output or downsampling logic, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand the basic behavior.

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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds minimal new semantics beyond summarizing output and noting that `include` defaults to all stocks. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.

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 a model and returns downsampled time series with per-variable summaries. It specifies the resource (model) and action (run). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling simulation tools like sensitivity_analysis or compare_scenarios, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sensitivity_analysis or compare_scenarios. The description mentions a dependency requirement but lacks context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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