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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the data provenance caveat ("wheel layout … comes from fan guides only") and clarifies this is simulated in-game scrap, not real money. It also previews output shape (expected_result, return %, std dev per spin/session), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose (odds, house edge, expected result) and then enumerates outputs and caveats in dense but purposeful clauses. Slightly long with the embedded URL and the wheel-layout enumeration, but little is truly wasteful.

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?

For a 2-optional-parameter calculator with no output schema, it explains both the outputs (payback, house edge, expected_result, std dev) and the data-source caveat, which is enough to call it correctly. One minor gap: it mentions simulating sessions "with a starting bank" although no bank parameter exists, which could confuse an agent about inputs.

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%, so the format for `bets` (`number:scrap`) and the `spins` count are already documented; the description largely restates that omitting bets yields the odds table. It adds a little framing about per-session expected results but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: computes exact odds, house edge, and expected result for the Bandit Camp Big Wheel, enumerating the outputs (each number's chance, payback per scrap, what the wheel keeps, expected_result, return %, standard deviation). It explicitly scopes to "Rust's in-game scrap wheel at Bandit Camp, not real-money gambling," which separates it from sibling calculators like blackjack_strategy or get_bandit_camp_rules.

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?

Usage is only implied – it is a calculator you call when you want odds or expected value for bets. It does clarify that omitting `bets` returns just the odds table, which is a useful usage distinction, but it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer another calculator.

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