run_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns side-by-side costs for matching plans, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what determines 'matching' plans, assumptions, or any side effects, leaving moderate gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is no filler or redundant information; it efficiently communicates purpose and output.

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?

For a five-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage pattern, and output shape ('side-by-side' costs). It could be more complete by clarifying differences from sibling tools, but the core scenario is adequately described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 ('Calculate') and identifies the resource ('total monthly token usage and cost') as well as the output behavior ('Returns costs for all matching plans side-by-side'). It clearly conveys the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like compare_plans.

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 implies usage for a 'given usage pattern' and provides context about what it calculates. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like compare_plans, break_even, or recommend_plan, and does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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