What-if threshold

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the re-run is in-memory, takes roughly one second, and never writes output.csv, which is consistent with the annotations.

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 definition is a single dense but front-loaded sentence that leads with the core in-memory re-run purpose and follows with outcomes and the no-write guarantee. It is appropriately sized, with only slight awkwardness from the 'and/or' phrasing.

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?

For a read-only what-if tool with two optional numeric parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what results to expect: changed/manual cases and confidence_v2 human routing. It could be more complete by stating defaults or behavior for the confidence_v2 threshold, but the core call context is present.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies MIN_PICK_CONFIDENCE with a default of 0.30 and references the confidence_v2 review threshold, but it does not explicitly map the latter to min_confidence_v2 or explain its default, leaving a gap for the second parameter.

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 defines a specific what-if operation: an in-memory re-run with a different MIN_PICK_CONFIDENCE and/or confidence_v2 threshold to see which cases would change, become manual, or route to a human. It distinguishes this from tools that write outputs by stating it never writes output.csv, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the what-if framing: use it to simulate threshold changes and review routing without committing results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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