integral_rectangulo

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the approximation method, the role of epsilon for the truncation error bound, and the return structure (integral, error estimates, table). While it does not discuss edge cases or error handling, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 efficient: a one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args/Returns list. No word is wasted, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse the key information quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough: it states the mathematical objective, explains all inputs, and summarizes the output. The only minor gap is that the exact keys/content of the 'table' and the nature of 'error estimates' are not detailed, but this is acceptable for a numerical routine.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter (func_str, a, b, n, epsilon, precision) is given a concise, meaningful definition, including the constraint b > a and the optional nature of epsilon. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare names and types in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Approximate') and resource (the definite integral via the composite midpoint/rectangle rule), clearly distinguishing it from sibling integration tools like integral_simpson13 or integral_trapecio. The method name and formula are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied by the method (composite midpoint rule) and the parameter list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as Simpson's rule or the trapezoidal rule. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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