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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing exact computation method (full enumeration for Hold'em, exact postflop Omaha), a deterministic 200,000-board sample preflop, the ±0.2pp error bound, and reproducibility for identical input. That level of precision disclosure is exactly what matters for trusting an analytical result.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded followed by accuracy guarantees. Every clause (enumeration vs sampling, determinism, tolerance) carries distinct information.

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 output schema, the description still specifies the return values (win, tie, and total equity percentages per hand), the supported game variants, board range, and accuracy limits. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 67% and the schema already documents game defaults, board format, and per-hand card counts. The description adds domain rules (Omaha plays best two of four, four-card hands required) but largely restates the schema's parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (equity calculation) with exact scope: Texas Hold'em or PLO, 2-4 hands, 0-5 community cards, returning win/tie/equity percentages. The output and input scope make it clearly distinct from calculate_pot_odds and analyze_hand without needing to name 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?

The description implies when the tool applies (evaluating 2-4 known hands over 0-5 known board cards) but never states when to prefer it over calculate_pot_odds or analyze_hand, nor any exclusions such as hand-count limits beyond the schema. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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