calc_equity

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the method (Monte Carlo) and mentions opponents are random, but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., invalid card formats, board length constraints), error behavior, or return value details. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a docstring-style parameter list. Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (4 parameters, Monte Carlo simulation) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the main aspects: algorithm, input format, and parameter semantics. It lacks details on output format, error handling, and performance, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values explicitly. Still, some completeness is lost.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter's role: hole cards, board cards (with allowed lengths), number of opponents, and number of trials. This goes beyond the bare type information in the schema. However, it does not mention defaults (5000, 1) which are in 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 tool's purpose: estimating hero equity via Monte Carlo simulation against random opponents. It provides a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('equity'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'advise' or 'get_opponent_stats' which serve different functions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context suggests it is for equity calculation, but no comparison to siblings like 'advise' is given. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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