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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the statistical assumption (equally likely regular styles after combined secret probability removed) and the definition of 'owned' – important caveats for interpreting an estimation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core function before the assumption and exclusions. Each sentence adds a distinct constraint (function, assumption, term definition, exclusion) with little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never explains what the estimate returns (predicted counts, probabilities, expected new styles) or how to interpret it. Combined with 0% parameter coverage, it leaves enough gaps that an agent cannot fully predict the response.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It partially does: 'Owned means distinct regular styles from this exact series' maps to ownedStyles, and 'independent boxes' / 'combined secret probability' gesture at boxes and secretPercent, but no units or exact mappings are given for regularStyles or secretPercent.

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 specific verb (estimate) and resource (collection progress: distinct regular styles, repeated draws, secret draws), so the function is clear. The closing 'Not sealed-case allocation or completion probability' helps separate it from siblings like compare_blind_box_budget, though it doesn't name them directly.

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?

Gives a meaningful exclusion ('Not sealed-case allocation or completion probability') and states the modeling assumption, which implies when it applies. But it never names which sibling to use instead (e.g., secret_pull_probability, calculate_style_probability), so routing is left to inference.

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