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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful caveat that the tests are informed by NIST SP 800-22 but no certification is claimed, and it documents accepted sequence types. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned, what defaults are applied, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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 tight and front-loaded: it names the operation and enumerates the tests in the first sentence, then adds a caveat and input clarification in the second. It avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by separating input types from behavioral caveats.

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?

Given seven parameters carrying statistical semantics, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal for an agent to confidently invoke the tool across its feature set. It omits return-value shape, the role of alpha, the meaning of expected/dist_params, and how 'all' or custom test selection interacts with other parameters.

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 description adds meaning for 'sequence' by listing accepted forms (numbers, strings, hex/base64) and enumerates available test names that map to the 'tests' parameter. But several parameters—alpha, expected, dist_params, distribution, and input_type behavior—rely on the schema or the user's prior knowledge, so the description only partially compensates for the 57% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a statistical battery over a sequence and enumerates the specific tests it runs (frequency, chi-squared, runs, etc.). This gives a clear verb-like sense of operation and resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state the higher-level goal (e.g., randomness assessment).

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 states the input ('a sequence') and the tests performed, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like 'random', 'explore', or 'commitment'. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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