simulate_route_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this only works in the sandbox and fails on production. It omits other behaviors an agent would want, such as whether a simulated deposit record persists or what permissions are required.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, and the most decision-critical fact ('SANDBOX ONLY') is front-loaded before the explanation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers environment, purpose, and the effect of the call, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Missing side-effect and permission details keep it short of fully complete for a 7-parameter mutation-style tool.

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 100%, including the enum semantics for 'scenario', so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Simulate a fiat deposit into a payment route') and adds the observable outcome ('watch the conversion and payout complete'). The route-versus-transfer distinction is implicit rather than stated, so it does not explicitly separate itself from the sibling simulate_transfer_deposit.

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?

Gives a clear environment condition — sandbox use with 'Fails on production' as an explicit exclusion. It does not name an alternative tool or say what to use for real deposits, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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