lagrange_interpolation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose error conditions (e.g., mismatched array lengths, duplicate x-points), computational complexity, numerical stability issues, or what happens with invalid 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a mathematical function tool.

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?

For a mathematical computation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the mathematical context, assumptions, return format, or error handling needed for proper use.

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%, and the description provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain that x_points and y_points must be arrays of equal length representing known data points, or that interpolation_point is where to evaluate the interpolating polynomial. The three parameters remain undocumented beyond their names.

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 mathematical method (Lagrange interpolation) and the action (calculates function values at interpolation points). It specifies the verb 'calculate' and resource 'function values', but doesn't differentiate from sibling interpolation methods like 'bisection_method' or 'newton_method' which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other interpolation/numerical methods available in the sibling tools list.

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