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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool is stateless, requires caller-supplied state, and returns a selection, which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs. It does not mention seed semantics or error behavior on invalid state, but the primary stateless contract is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and every sentence adds useful information. The state shape and the one strategy-specific parameter are conveyed efficiently.

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 gives enough for a basic understanding of the stateless contract and one parameter, but it omits the structure of the arms array, the purpose of seed, and the exact form of the returned selection. Given that there is no output schema and there are nested objects, these gaps make the description minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It adds meaningful semantics for the state object (arm -> pulls/successes/total_reward) and for params.epsilon, and it enumerates strategy values. However, it leaves the arms array element shape, the seed parameter, and the general params object semantics unexplained.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a bandit arm selection mechanism and names the supported strategies (epsilon_greedy, thompson, ucb1). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, so some ambiguity about when this specific explorer is preferred remains, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is used for stateless multi-armed bandit decisions and tells the caller to pass state in a specific shape. It does not say when to choose this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it, and it gives no guidance on selecting one strategy over another.

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