calculate_lottery_odds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns probability and 1-in-N for each tier, which is transparent. No side effects or destructive actions are implied. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations or assumptions in the calculation, but for a simple probability calculator, this is acceptable.

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?

Description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and a pointer to related calculators. No fluff.

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 and presence of output schema, the description covers the essential: it computes odds for prize tiers and returns probabilities. The pointer to list_bundles provides context for related calculators. Lacks explicit mention of what constitutes a 'prize tier' but output schema likely covers that. Slight deduction for not explaining the calculation method or edge cases, though not critical.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description only rephrases parameter names ('numbers to pick, total numbers, bonus number config') without adding new meaning. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage >80%. No extra semantic value provided.

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?

Description clearly states verb (compute) and resource (lottery odds) with specific mention of 'for various prize tiers.' It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing list_bundles for related calculators, providing differentiation. No ambiguity.

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?

Description advises 'Use for awareness, education,' which gives a general context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of list_bundles for related calculators is a weak alternative, but no strong exclusions or comparisons to other calculator tools.

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