calculate_side_pots

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the player-count range and that the result is "exact" (not an approximation), but says nothing about validation behavior (e.g., what happens with negative amounts, empty arrays, or folded contributors) or the shape of the returned pot breakdown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that spends every word on scope or output. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most important qualifier ("Multi-Way All-In") appears immediately.

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 pure computational tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core is covered, but one real ambiguity remains: the description says dead money includes "folded bets" while the schema gives each contribution its own `folded` boolean, leaving the agent unsure which channel to use. The absence of any return-shape hint compounds this since no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the 2-to-9 player constraint is nowhere in the schema, and it clarifies that dead money covers blinds, antes, and folded bets. It stops short of telling the agent how to reconcile a per-player `folded` flag with the separate `dead_money` field.

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 ("Calculate") and a precise set of outputs (Main Pot, Side Pots, Uncalled Bet returns), plus scope (2 to 9 players, dead money). It is clearly distinct from the sibling calculators (ICM, pot odds, SPR, rake), though it never explicitly states that differentiation.

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 multi-way all-in scenario is implied by the phrase "Multi-Way All-In Main Pot, Side Pots," so an agent can infer when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative for related-but-different calculations.

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