aetre_heavy_tailed_voi

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states that it 'Calculates' something; it does not disclose whether it is a pure function, any assumptions about the Pareto tail, the nature of the result (e.g., a numeric VOI score), error conditions, or computational cost. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the formula name.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundant information, and it reads efficiently. Slightly more might be warranted for a complex tool, but it is not bloated.

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 specialized and complex (7 parameters, no output schema, heavy-tailed VOI concept) yet the description does not explain the return format, assumptions, or when to use it relative to similar sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks essential context about the result and invocation scenario. The schema covers parameter names but not the overall behavior or expected output.

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 all parameters already have documented meanings (e.g., posterior_mean, variance, tail_index_alpha). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail or guidance on how to set these values; it merely restates the general purpose. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb 'Calculates' and names the resource 'Generalized Pareto / Heavy-Tailed VOI', and states its purpose ('optimize selection pipelines for positive black swan breakthrough discovery') which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like aetre_calculate_voi and aetre_multi_attribute_voi. No confusion about what it does.

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 a usage context (positive black swan breakthrough discovery) but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the many other VOI-related siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer based on the term 'heavy-tailed'.

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