recommend

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: synchronous deterministic compute, nothing is persisted, and no separate rate limit applies. It also discloses the output shape, giving the agent a fuller behavioral model.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then usage, then behavior and output. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

The description documents the return fields despite no output schema, and the usage condition is explicit. The main gap is the unexplained n_simulations and objective semantics, though defaults make the tool callable without that detail.

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 50%: actions has a description, but n_simulations has none. The description does not explain n_simulations, the objective field, or the variable range semantics beyond what the schema already says, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Compare multiple named actions/options and get a ranked recommendation.' It also immediately signals the recommendation output and the ranking basis, which differentiates it from siblings like compare or score.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when you need to choose between two or more alternatives with uncertainty,' giving a clear triggering condition. It does not state exclusions or name specific alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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