distribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no return format, no side effects, no error behavior, no explanation of how 'fit' differs from evaluation. 'By attribute name' is the only real behavioral hint.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine valid operations, parameter roles, or return values from this definition alone.

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% across 7 parameters. The description hints at the meaning of 'operation' (pdf/cdf/ppf/rvs/fit) and 'dist' (attribute name), but leaves n, x, data, seed, and params entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clear verb+resource: evaluate (pdf/cdf/ppf/rvs) or fit a scipy.stats distribution. The named operations and 'by attribute name' give a reasonably precise picture of what the tool does, though it does not contrast itself with siblings like curve_fit or describe.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description lists operations but never states which operation to choose under which circumstances or what prerequisites (e.g., data required for fitting, x required for pdf) apply.

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