plan_decision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is synchronous and deterministic, is governed by a per-minute rate limit and monthly quota, and 'nothing is persisted.' No statement contradicts 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and output, the second gives usage selection versus simulate, and the third covers execution semantics and persistence. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, payload relationship to simulate, expected output content, rate limiting, and non-persistence. It does not spell out the full DecisionPlan object fields, but it gives the essential return elements and points to simulate for the contract, which is reasonable.

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 schema exposes zero properties and only a generic object description, so the baseline is 4. The description partially compensates by saying the payload follows 'the same payload contract as simulate' and is forwarded to POST /v1/decisions/plan, which sends an agent to the sibling tool for contract details, though it does not enumerate actual parameters.

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 names a specific action ('Run a validated simulation-style request'), the target resource (DecisionPlan summary via POST /v1/decisions/plan), and the output shape (recommended action plus calibrated confidence). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'simulate' by saying simulate returns the full DecisionEnvelope, so an agent can differentiate them without inspecting schemas.

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: 'Use this when the caller needs the plan summary for a dashboard or a follow-up plan_decision-to-log_decision flow.' It also states the alternative: 'use simulate for the full envelope.' This is direct routing with no inference required.

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