check

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description's safety burden is low. The description does add useful behavioral context by indicating the output is a probability estimate for a bounded proposition, but it does not explain edge cases, assumptions, or how 'bounded' is enforced.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a tool whose safety profile is already captured by annotations.

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?

Despite rich annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete for a five-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage. It gives no guidance on required inputs like state and instructions or optional criteria like true_criteria and false_criteria, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the five undocumented parameters (model, state, instructions, true_criteria, false_criteria). It does not: no parameter is mentioned, explained, or mapped to the 'bounded yes/no proposition' concept, leaving an agent to guess how to construct a valid call.

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 names a specific verb ('estimate') and a specific resource ('probability that a bounded yes/no proposition is true'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like evaluate or score, which could also produce probabilistic outputs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (evaluate, classify, verify, score, etc.). The phrase 'bounded yes/no proposition' implies a constraint, but the description never states when this tool is preferred or what alternatives exist.

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