simulate_economic_scenario

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 propagation of shocks but does not disclose whether this is read-only or modifies state, or any side effects, rate limits, or permissions needed. The term 'propagate' could imply mutation, but this is not clarified.

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 (17 words), which is concise. However, it lacks essential details that would justify its brevity; it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 2 required parameters with nested objects and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how shocks are applied, what 'directional' means, or what the output represents. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description still fails to provide sufficient context.

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% for the 2 parameters ('shocks' and 'signals'), both being objects with number values. The description adds no explanation of their meaning, expected structure, or relationship. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 uses specific verb 'Propagate' and resource 'economic digital twin', indicating simulation of shocks. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'compare_series' or 'query_economic_graph', but the phrase 'transparent directional shocks' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explain_economic_signal' or 'run_agent_workflow'. The description does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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