interpolation_lagrange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the operation (build polynomial), input flexibility, and return contents including 'error bounds when ``func_str`` is provided.' It does not disclose error handling or precision rounding specifics, but it covers the core behavior well.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a one-line usage rule, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers inputs and return shape sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks an example and edge-case warnings (e.g., duplicate abscissas, both func_str and puntos_y provided), but the essential context is present.

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 and does compensate. Each parameter gets a meaningful one-liner: 'Distinct abscissas', 'Optional x where the polynomial is evaluated', 'generating function f(x)', 'y values matching puntos_x one-to-one', and 'Rounding digits'. This adds real semantics beyond bare schema titles, though it could add more constraints like length matching.

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 'Build the Lagrange interpolating polynomial through a set of points,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. This is distinct from sibling tools focused on integration, ODEs, and root-finding, leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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 description explicitly says to provide 'either the point values ``puntos_y`` or the generating function ``func_str`` evaluated at ``puntos_x``,' giving concrete input selection guidance. It does not mention explicit non-use cases or alternatives beyond this either/or, so it stops short of a 5.

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