plan_decision

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: synchronous deterministic compute, rate limit and monthly quota governance, and explicit non-persistence. It doesn't describe error behavior when limits are exceeded, but the added context is meaningful.

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 well-organized and front-loaded, but the final 'Which to use' sentence largely repeats the second sentence. That redundancy costs a point; otherwise the content is efficient and scannable.

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 tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, output shape, selection guidance, rate limits, quota, and persistence behavior. No critical gap is apparent for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds useful cross-reference by stating the payload contract is the same as simulate, which helps an agent reuse knowledge of that sibling's payload.

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 states a specific action ('Run a validated simulation-style request') and a precise resource/output ('DecisionPlan summary'), and explicitly contrasts itself with 'simulate'. This makes the tool's role easy to distinguish from related siblings like simulate and log_decision.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: dashboard display or plan_decision-to-log_decision flow. It also clearly names the alternative ('use simulate for the full envelope') and reinforces the choice with a closing 'Which to use' statement.

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