DeepMiro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses pagination behavior ('Paginated — use offset to get more results when has_more is true'), which is crucial for usage. It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but with annotations covering safety, this is a strong addition.

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 front-loaded with a comprehensive list of data types in one sentence, followed by a clear pagination instruction. Every sentence earns its place: the first enumerates resources, and the second explains pagination mechanics. No wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description is mostly complete. It covers key behavioral aspects like pagination and data types. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the response structure (e.g., mentioning 'has_more' field), but the pagination note partially addresses this.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'data_type' options in more detail). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 'access' and specifies the exact resources: 'agent profiles, configuration, action logs, social media posts, round-by-round timeline, per-agent activity stats, and interview history.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_simulations' (which lists simulations) and 'simulation_status' (which provides status updates) by focusing on detailed data retrieval within a specific simulation.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning pagination ('use offset to get more results when has_more is true') and implicitly suggests starting with 'overview' data type (as noted in the schema). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report' or 'search_simulations,' which could help differentiate further.

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