List valid simulation settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the result is account-scoped and 'Cached for a week', which tells the agent that responses may be stale and that repeated calls are cheap. It stops short of saying whether the cache can be bypassed or refreshed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then the one structural detail an agent needs (by_context) and the caching note. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description carries the remaining burden well by explaining account scoping, the by_context mapping, and cache duration. A brief pointer to when to call it relative to the simulate_* siblings is the only meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to compensate for. The mention of 'by_context' describes a response field rather than an input, and the presence of an output schema means the description need not document it.

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 verb ('List') and enumerates the concrete resources returned: regions, universes, delays and neutralizations, scoped to 'this account'. That is enough to distinguish it from status/tool siblings like get_simulation_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call to make before invoking simulate_alpha or simulate_alphas_batch, since it returns valid setting values. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative.

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