integrate_function

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

The description discloses the return value (value and error estimate) and input format, but it does not specify the numerical method used, potential failure cases, or performance characteristics. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only provides basic behavioral information.

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, well-structured with a clear header and bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers input, output, and constraints adequately. It mentions supported functions and constants, and the return format. Minor gaps include lack of algorithm details or error handling, but overall it provides a complete enough picture for basic 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains each parameter: 'expression' is a math expression in x with examples and supported functions/constants, 'lower' and 'upper' are integration limits. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 that the tool performs numerical integration of a univariate function over an interval, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like find_root, minimize_function, and determinant, which perform different mathematical operations.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as the function being integrable or continuous, and does not mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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