what_if

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it involves 'pure arithmetic, no LLM', which clarifies non-deterministic behavior. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the computational nature.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the Chinese text may be less accessible to English-only agents.

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?

The description covers the core function and hints at parameters, but does not specify valid parameter combinations (e.g., mutually exclusive pct and price) or output details. An output schema exists, so return values are handled, but usage context could be expanded.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description only hints at parameter usage via the example (pct for percentage change, price for target price). No detailed semantics or constraints are provided, leaving ambiguity.

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 explicitly states it is a 'P&L scenario simulation' using an example query, which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling trading tools like buy/sell by being analytical rather than transactional.

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 a usage example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decisions' or 'explain_decision'. Context is implied but not formally guided.

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