bearoff_probabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions the return type but leaves key ambiguities: 'N moves' is undefined (no parameter for N), and the '6-element list' format is unexplained. No error behavior or context is provided.

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 concise and structured with Args/Returns. It avoids filler but introduces the unexplained 'N', which slightly detracts. Overall efficient.

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 simple and an output schema exists, but the description leaves gaps: 'N moves' is undefined, the list format is unclear, and there is no usage context. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensation is needed. The description adds that bearoff_id is either an integer ID or a 6-element list, which provides more than the bare schema type. However, it does not explain what the integer represents or what the list elements mean, leaving the parameter only partially specified.

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 states a specific action ('Get the probability distribution of bearing off') with a clear resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'probabilities' or 'bearoff_id_2_pos', but the bearing-off scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases are mentioned; the description simply states what the tool does.

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