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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: every rule carries an epistemic confidence tag (confirmed by Facepunch, corroborated, unconfirmed) and slot machine odds are explicitly unavailable anywhere. That tells the agent how much to trust what comes back.

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?

Information is front-loaded: scope first, then per-game contents, then trust model, then a scope disclaimer. The opening clause duplicates the title and the inline calculator URLs add bulk without much decision value, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what games are covered, what each rule includes, how confidence is signalled, and what data does not exist. Only the return format (flat list vs. grouped per game) is left unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the description correctly describes a parameterless lookup and explains the shape of the payload (per-rule rules with confidence levels) instead of wasting words on inputs.

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 concrete resource (Bandit Camp game rules) and enumerates exactly what it covers: wheel segments and payout, blackjack table rules, poker (no rake), and slot paytables. Ties itself to the specific calculators it backs, which separates it from odds-strategy siblings like big_wheel_odds and blackjack_strategy.

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 phrase 'the rules behind [the calculators]' implies this is the reference data underneath the calculators rather than the calculators themselves, but it never explicitly says when to pick this over big_wheel_odds or blackjack_strategy. The note that slot odds and house cut are unpublished and the real-money disclaimer helpfully bound expectations, but there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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