calculate_spr_sizing

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computed outputs, which implies a pure read-only calculation with no side effects, but it never explicitly states that nothing is mutated, nor does it mention unit handling (chips vs Big Blinds) or how the Commitment Zone thresholds are derived.

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 names the resource and enumerates outputs with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter pure calculator this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description only lists output names without explaining structure, units, or what a 'Commitment Zone' classification contains. An agent knows what it will get conceptually but not the shape of the response.

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 100% and both parameters document their meaning, units, and defaults (pot 10, stack 90). The description adds no additional semantics 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 ('Calculate') and enumerates the exact quantities produced: SPR, Commitment Zone classification, and 1/2/3-street geometric bet sizing. This is clearly distinguishable from the odds/equity calculators among the siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it complements or contrasts with, so not 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 on when to use this versus calculate_pot_odds_and_mdf or calculate_plo_max_bet_and_rake, no stated prerequisites (e.g. postflop only, requires known effective stack), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the postflop spot-sizing use case entirely from the name and output list.

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