athena_approx_error_transport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that geometric nearest, global-envelope, and radius-eligible transport witnesses remain distinct and that the certificate is conditional on the declared bound. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or how results are returned, leaving significant gaps.

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 two dense sentences with no filler, and both sentences contribute technical information. The second sentence is highly compressed and jargon-laden, which slightly harms readability, but overall it is concise and structured.

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 complex 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, return value, usage prerequisites, and any practical context, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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%, and the description does not explain most parameters. It loosely maps 'witness pairs' to witnesses and 'caller-declared Lipschitz envelope' to lipschitz_bound, but parameters like feature_order, queries, margin_safety, and max_transport_radius are left entirely undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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 'Transport' and identifies the resource: 'witnessed approximation error' through a 'caller-declared Lipschitz envelope'. It is not tautological and references witness pairs, which helps distinguish it from generic transport sibling tools, though the jargon is heavy and may be opaque without domain knowledge.

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 implies usage: it is for transporting approximation error with a caller-declared Lipschitz bound and witness pairs. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools, so an agent has to infer context from the dense phrasing.

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