analytics_scenario_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'probability weighting' which hints at some calculation behavior, but doesn't disclose what the tool actually produces (e.g., comparison metrics, visual output, statistical analysis), whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has any limitations. The behavioral aspects are largely unspecified.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential action and scope.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested objects with arrays, multiple required fields) and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. No output schema exists, so the description should explain what results to expect. For a tool with this level of parameter complexity and no annotations, the single-sentence description leaves too many questions unanswered about behavior, output, and proper usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'scenarios' and 'probability weighting' which aligns with the 'scenarios' array parameter, but doesn't explain the 'worksheetName' parameter at all. The description provides minimal semantic context beyond what can be inferred from parameter names, leaving significant gaps in understanding what data to provide and how it should be structured.

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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'multiple scenarios' with specific types 'Best/Base/Worst case' and mentions 'probability weighting'. It distinguishes this as a comparison tool rather than a creation or analysis tool like its siblings, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar comparison tools like analytics_sensitivity_analysis.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like analytics_monte_carlo_simulation or analytics_sensitivity_analysis might be more suitable. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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