gacha_odds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return content (each reward with weight and probability %) and the fallback list behavior for unknown or omitted types. It does not address the contradiction between 'omit' in the description and 'required' in the schema, nor other edge cases.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is stated separately and clearly.

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?

For a one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the return format and the main special case. However, the conflict between 'omit' and the required schema leaves the agent uncertain about how to actually make the call, and no valid enum values or examples are provided.

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 is the only explanation of the pool_type parameter. It explains that the parameter selects the pool type and that an unknown/omitted value returns the available types, which is a practical way to discover valid values. It does not define what the integer values represent or how to trigger the fallback deliberately.

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 returns drop odds for a gacha pool, including reward weight and probability percentage. It identifies the relevant parameter ('by Type') but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling data-lookup tools.

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 gives a useful discovery path: omitting or passing an unknown pool type returns the list of available pool types. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, and the omission advice conflicts with the schema marking pool_type as required.

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