bilinear_interpolate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('perform bilinear interpolation') without describing how it behaves: no information on error handling, performance, numerical stability, or output format. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a parenthetical note—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage; every word contributes to defining the tool's domain and category.

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 the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the mathematical operation, parameter meanings, expected output, or any behavioral aspects. For a numerical interpolation tool with many inputs, this minimal description is inadequate for effective use.

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 input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what x, y, x1, x2, y1, y2, f11, f12, f21, f22 represent or their roles in bilinear interpolation. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the parameter names.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Perform bilinear interpolation for 2D grid data', specifying the verb ('perform'), resource ('bilinear interpolation'), and domain ('2D grid data'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'linear_interpolate' by specifying the 2D grid context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides minimal usage guidance through the parenthetical '(Domain: numerical, Category: interpolation)', which implies it's for numerical interpolation tasks. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linear_interpolate', 'cubic_spline_interpolate', or 'lagrange_interpolate' from the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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