calculate_poker_hand_probability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it claims inputs 'hole cards, community cards' that do not exist in the input schema (only hand_type is accepted). This is a major contradiction and misleads the agent about required inputs.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, but it contains irrelevant and incorrect input details. The cross-reference to list_bundles is useful but the misleading content outweighs conciseness.

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 input schema is simple (1 param with enum) and an output schema exists, the description should clarify what inputs the tool actually expects. It fails by claiming additional inputs (hole cards, community cards) that are not in the schema, leading to critical incompleteness.

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% for hand_type, so baseline is 3. However, the description introduces false parameter expectations (hole cards, community cards) instead of clarifying the actual parameter. It adds no value and actively misleads.

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 specifies the tool's action: 'Compute probability of common poker hands' given a starting hand. It lists example hands and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_card_draw_probability' by focusing on poker strategy.

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 states 'Use for poker strategy' and mentions inputs (hole cards, community cards) but does not explicitly tell when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'calculate_card_draw_probability'. It references list_bundles for related calculators, providing some guidance.

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