run_scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is '100% deterministic,' a key behavioral trait, and lists the returned components (projections, key_results, assumptions_used, methodology, notes, plain-language explanation). It doesn't explicitly state side effects, but for a simulation tool, determinism and output transparency are meaningful.

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 three-sentence description is front-loaded with the core purpose, includes essential behavioral and output details, and has no fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview and lists return fields, which is helpful. However, it omits explicit guidance on choosing this tool versus siblings, and nuances like inputs being passable at top level or unknown-key handling are only in the schema, not the description. Adequate but with gaps.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions the two modes ('template or a free-form metrics model') but doesn't clarify parameter syntax or relationships beyond the schema. Therefore, it doesn't significantly compensate for the 20% gap.

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?

Description clearly identifies run_scenario as the 'Main simulation tool' and specifies its functionality: 'Deterministic what-if projection from a template or a free-form metrics model.' This gives a specific verb (run/project), resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the primary simulation entry point.

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 provides minimal usage guidance beyond calling it the 'Main simulation tool.' It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sensitivity_analysis, break_even, compare_scenarios, or other siblings, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'main' label implies primary use, but concrete direction is missing.

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