Get Simulation

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds meaningful context by enumerating the exact return fields (gross income, results, advantage, recommendation, estimated savings) and clarifying that all amounts are in euros. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured list of return values. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose and output list, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it lacks parameter details and fails to differentiate from the similar sibling tool, making it only partially complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the description only indirectly references the 'year' parameter and possibly the 'abatement' parameter via the 50%/30% deduction. The 'abatement' parameter is never explicitly explained, leaving the agent to guess its valid values and effect.

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 tool compares micro-BIC and real regimes for a given year and lists specific outputs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'compare_micro_bic', so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_micro_bic'. The description implies a yearly simulation but provides no exclusions or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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