calculate_poker_hand_probability

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

The description claims inputs are 'hole cards, community cards', but the input schema only contains a single parameter 'hand_type' (an enum of hand categories). This is misleading and contradicts the actual interface. Additionally, it does not clarify that the tool computes probability for a specific hand type, not a complete starting hand.

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 three sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, usage, and reference to related tools. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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 presence of an output schema, return value details are not needed. However, the description fails to accurately describe the input, making it incomplete and potentially confusing. It does not clarify that only one hand type is accepted or explain the relationship to a 'starting hand'.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds false information about 'hole cards and community cards' instead of accurately describing the 'hand_type' parameter. It also repeats the enum values without adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 verb 'compute probability', the resource 'poker hands', and the context 'given a starting hand' and 'for poker strategy'. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling calculator tools by being specific to poker hand probabilities.

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 says 'Use for poker strategy', which gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, but it does reference 'list_bundles' for related calculators, showing some guidance.

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