athena_counterfactual_simulate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait: 'without committing topology' implies the tool does not modify topology, adding important context. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation overall, whether it persists any other state, or what side effects may occur, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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, dense sentence that starts with the action ('Rank candidate organizations') and packs all key constraints into one breath. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should clarify return values and parameter usage. It does neither: it omits any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., ranked list, scores), and it fails to define key terms like 'RGO', 'empirical calibration', or 'bounded learned policy', leaving the agent under-informed for a tool with nested parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'candidates' refers to candidate organizations and implies ranking criteria, but it says nothing about 'scope' or 'context' parameters, leaving them undefined. The description adds some meaning for one parameter but fails to explain the other two, which is insufficient given zero schema coverage.

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's function: 'Rank candidate organizations' using specified criteria (base RGO, empirical calibration, bounded learned policy, risk and budget pressure). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'without committing topology,' which separates it from topology-modifying tools like athena_topology_apply, while still covering simulation aspects that overlap with rollout tools.

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 committing topology' implies a use case where the agent wants to evaluate or rank candidates without making permanent structural changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_rollout_simulate or athena_policy_score. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it is only implied usage.

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