run_sdac_trial

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no real record is created, that the call is free in the immediate sense, and that each trial raises the final settlement via a specific formula. This goes beyond basic mutation behavior and helps the agent understand side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently adds cost implications and side effects. No redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description clearly states the return value (DAC cost) and the side effect on end_sdac_session settlement. It does not explain the session lifecycle in depth, but the schema covers the session_id parameter and the sibling tools imply the workflow. This is sufficiently complete for a tool with a 100%-covered schema.

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%, and each parameter already has a description. The description introduces the term 'EE combination' which groups several parameters but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Price') and resource ('EE combination'), clearly scopes it to a simulation session, and explicitly contrasts with create_decision by stating it does not create a real record. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_decision.

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 phrase 'without creating a real record' and the reference to 'same combination would cost on create_decision' imply this tool is for pricing without committing. However, it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites beyond the session ID requirement.

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