score

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'Synchronous deterministic compute; nothing is persisted,' which provides extra behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is moderately lengthy but front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence provides useful info, though some repetition around 'simulate' occurs. Structure is logical and efficient.

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?

Tool has 2 params with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, but description lists return fields (recommended_action, expected_value, probability_of_loss, score, score_breakdown). It covers behavior, parameters, and usage. Minor gap: nested request structure not detailed but forwarded to simulate, which is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. Description adds meaning to scoring_weights by explaining it tunes the blend with defaults (expected_value 0.6, downside_risk 0.4), which goes beyond the schema's bare description. This adds value for the agent.

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?

Clearly states it runs one simulation request and returns decision envelope plus composite score with breakdown. Distinguishes from siblings: simulate for full envelope without scoring, compare to rank several scenarios. Specific verb+resource.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'one scenario reduced to a single weighted number; use simulate for the full envelope without scoring, or compare and recommend to pick between options.' Gives clear alternatives and selection criteria.

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