Egyptian Bounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'bounds rulers'—it does not disclose output format, pagination, or constraints. With annotations covering safety, description should explain what the computed data represents but fails to do so.

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 extremely short (two sentences plus group label and example). While brief, it omits critical information and is under-specified rather than concise. Important context about output or usage is missing.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling list, the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain what 'bounds' are, how to interpret results, or how to use parameters. The agent would lack sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter; it only shows an example with '...chart' which is not a field in the schema. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's basic types and defaults, leaving the agent without understanding of parameter usage.

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 title 'Egyptian Bounds' and description 'Ptolemaic Egyptian bounds rulers' indicate the tool computes Hellenistic bounds/terms. However, it does not clearly state what is returned (e.g., bounds for each planet) or how it differs from siblings like 'hellenistic_hand_decanic_rulers'. The group label adds context, but the purpose is only moderately clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Hellenistic — Hand tradition' group implies a context but does not state when this is appropriate or when to avoid it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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