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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not explain seeded determinism vs. secure non-determinism, whether bounds are inclusive, or what happens with count>1. 'Secure token' hints at a cryptographic mode but the distinction is not developed.

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?

One short clause with zero filler, and the mode enumeration is front-loaded. It borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, most burden is lifted from the description, and the mode enumeration covers the tool's core surface. Still missing is sibling differentiation and any statement about bound inclusivity or seed determinism, which matters for callers.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description merely repeats the mode list. Baseline 3 applies: the schema carries the semantics and the description contributes nothing extra.

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 fragment enumerates the concrete outputs (int/float/choice/boolean/secure token), which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling calculator_random_distribution, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculator_random_distribution or the probability/statistics siblings. The only usage-ish note is '(optional seed)', which the schema already states. The agent is left to infer everything about selection context.

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