mc_hit_or_miss_1d

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the method handles sign-changing integrands correctly and returns a dict with estimate, interval, sample statistics, and history. It also mentions the optional seed for reproducibility. This goes beyond a bare statement of purpose.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note on behavior, a clear args list, and a returns summary. Every line adds value, and the parameter list is alphabetically/grouped logically without redundancy.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the method, parameter semantics, constraints, and return value sufficiently. It also differentiates itself from sibling Monte Carlo tools by naming the 'hit-or-miss' method explicitly.

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 provides no property descriptions, but the description explicitly explains all seven parameters: func_str, a, b, N, seed, precision, and nivel_confianza. While these explanations are concise, they are sufficient for an agent to infer the role of each parameter. The constraint b > a is also stated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('∫ₐᵇ f(x) dx') with the hit-or-miss Monte Carlo method, clearly distinguishing it from sibling integration tools. It even notes handling of sign-changing integrands, which is a unique feature.

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 clearly conveys it is for Monte Carlo integration, and the note about sign-changing integrands indicates appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls 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.