check_scenario_probability

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it explains the probing mechanism, probability threshold bands, the meaning of the recommended generation methods, the cost (~1-15s), baseline reuse, and the auto_generate_baseline fallback. It also warns that feature_name must be the display name, not a ticker, which is critical. No contradiction with 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 description is long but every sentence carries actionable information. It front-loads the purpose and usage rule, uses a clear bulleted list for probability thresholds, and concludes with a critical data-format note. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema, branching logic for method recommendation), the description is remarkably complete. It covers cost, baseline reuse, fallback behavior, low-probability workflow, and input validation, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to guess.

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?

Although schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), the tool description adds semantic context by explaining how n_baseline affects resolution, what n_paths_target is used for (method recommendation), and when auto_generate_baseline creates a baseline. It also clarifies the constraints shape and requirement that 'lower' and/or 'upper' must be present, adding value over the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a pre-flight feasibility check for constrained FLOW scenarios, explicitly stating it should be called before simulate_flow_scenario. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on probability estimation and method recommendation, not simulation itself.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('ALWAYS call this BEFORE simulate_flow_scenario when you have ≥2 constraints') and spells out the workflow for low-probability cases, including alternative actions like relaxing constraints or dropping least-essential constraints. It also names the sibling tool simulate_flow_scenario as the alternative.

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