aetre_calculate_voi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a calculation, which suggests a read-only operation, but it omits any mention of the api_key parameter and whether this triggers an external service call. No side effects, failure modes, or prerequisites (e.g., valid variance) are disclosed. The description is adequate for a pure computation but leaves the API dependency unexplained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and context appear in the correct order, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is an ideal length for communicating the core function.

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?

This is a complex Bayesian VOI calculator with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (a single value? a decision?), how to interpret the result, or any caveats about input validity. An agent cannot infer the expected output or which parameter combinations are meaningful, making the definition incomplete for practical use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail; it only restates the high-level purpose. All parameter meaning is already in the schema, so the description does not contribute additional value beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Calculates'), a precise object ('exact Bayesian Value of Information'), and a narrowing context ('crossing a top-K selection boundary under Gaussian conjugate updates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aetre_heavy_tailed_voi and aetre_multi_attribute_voi, which address different distributional or structural assumptions.

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 when to use this tool by specifying the Gaussian conjugate setting, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of heavy_tailed when...'. There is no guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention a fallback. The applicability is tacit rather than spelled out.

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