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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) already fully establish this as a safe, deterministic, offline computation, so little behavior disclosure is owed. The description adds only 'Returns probability per hand category', which is redundant with the existing output schema, and its claim of consuming hole/community cards is inaccurate behavior disclosure.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then a compact Inputs/Returns block. The final bundle cross-reference is arguably padding, and the Inputs clause is wrong rather than merely extra, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

A pure-computation tool with a full output schema needs little prose, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. But the description describes an input contract (starting hand, hole cards, community cards) that the schema does not implement, so an agent following the description literally cannot construct a valid call.

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 100% with a single, well-documented enum parameter, so the baseline would be 3. But the description actively misleads: it advertises 'hole cards, community cards' as inputs, while the schema allows only hand_type and sets additionalProperties=false, which would cause an agent to supply invalid arguments.

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?

Specific verb + resource (compute probability of poker hands) with concrete examples (straight, flush, full house), which clearly separates it from generic probability siblings like calculate_dice_probability or calculate_lottery_odds. However, the framing 'given a starting hand' and 'Inputs: hole cards, community cards' misrepresents what the tool actually takes, muddying the stated purpose.

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?

'Use for poker strategy' is a vague context statement, not guidance on when to choose this over the ~250 sibling calculators (e.g., calculate_card_draw_probability, calculate_expected_value_bet). The only routing hint points at list_bundles, which is a catalog tool, not an alternative calculator, so the agent gets no comparative guidance.

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