integrate

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the integration is numerical and provides a default tolerance, which is useful. But it omits potential numerical pitfalls, angle_mode semantics, or what kind of result to expect.

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 extremely concise, using a short 'When' clause followed by a compact parameter list and example. Every word adds value, and the most important context is front-loaded.

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?

Despite the absence of annotations and schema parameter descriptions, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and an example. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not necessary. Minor gaps like angle_mode details and numerical caveats prevent a perfect score.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters and gives an example, adding meaning to 'expression' (in x) and 'tol' (default 1e-10). However, 'angle_mode' is only mentioned by name without explaining its possible values or effect.

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 the tool computes a 'numerical definite integral of infix f(x) on [lower, upper]', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from related siblings like differentiate, summation, and product.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as 'When ... numerical definite integral', giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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