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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does so well: it discloses exact enumeration for Hold'em, deterministic 200,000-board sampling for preflop Omaha, the ±0.2 percentage point precision, and reproducibility. This is substantial behavioral detail beyond the raw schema.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, game variants, algorithm behavior, precision, and output values without redundant phrasing. The most critical decision-driving information is front-loaded.

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 states the return values (win, tie, total equity percentages), input constraints (2-4 hands, 0-5 board cards), and game-specific rules, covering what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, so the description's explicit output summary is especially valuable.

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 input schema already covers game, board, and hands, and the description adds important semantics such as the difference between exact postflop enumeration and sampled preflop evaluation, plus the 'best two play' rule for Omaha. It does not restate every parameter, but it meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 and resource: calculating equity for Texas Hold'em or Pot Limit Omaha across 2-4 hands and 0-5 community cards, with explicit output values. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like calculate_pot_odds by focusing on equity percentages rather than pot odds.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (equity calculation for specific hands/boards) and elaborates on game-specific behavior such as Omaha requiring four-card hands and best-two-play rules. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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