calculate_card_draw_probability

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. It states returns {odds_one_in} but does not disclose constraints, edge cases (e.g., decimal deck sizes), error handling, or whether it assumes hypergeometric distribution without replacement. Limited transparency beyond basic purpose and return format.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and return, second directs to related tools. No wasted words, efficient and 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?

Given output schema exists (not provided), description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a probability tool, it lacks explanation of assumptions (hypergeometric vs. binomial), edge cases, and does not fully leverage the simple parameter set. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate per rules.

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?

Tool name and description explicitly state calculating hypergeometric probability of drawing specific cards from a deck, which is precise and distinguishes it from many sibling probability calculators (e.g., dice_probability, lottery_odds). The description also directs to list_bundles for related calculators, aiding navigation.

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?

Minimal guidance: only mentions 'See list_bundles for related jeux-probabilites calculators,' which is a vague hint. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives beyond a reference to a bundle. Does not differentiate from similar probability tools like binomial or dice probability.

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