lookup_starting_hand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose important framing (100BB, 6-Max, GTO, positional) which tells the agent the assumptions behind the data, but it says nothing about response shape, caching, or that non-6-max/non-100BB spots are out of scope for the returned ranges.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the data categories. It is slightly bloated by a long example list that largely duplicates the schema's examples.

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 one-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough about what content comes back (combinatorics, ranges, 3-bet strategy, equity). It could say more about the returned structure, but no critical calling information is missing.

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 single 'hand' parameter is already fully documented, including slugs and the omit-to-list-all behavior. The description repeats the same example hands rather than adding new meaning, so 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?

The description names a specific verb ('look up') and a well-defined resource: combinatorics, opening ranges, 3-bet strategies and preflop equities for the 169 canonical Holdem starting hands. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling lookups such as get_preflop_chart or lookup_poker_rule.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for any of the 169 canonical Texas Holdem starting hands' tells the agent the input domain but not when to prefer this over other strategy tools. The useful 'omit to list all 169' behavior lives only in the schema, not the description.

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