range_analysis

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It starts with 'Read-only', states that real value-range analysis is unavailable until the numeric model ships, and notes that the response honestly reports that frontier. It could add return-shape or error details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with all critical information front-loaded: read-only, core purpose, limitation, and parameter guidance. Every clause adds value, and it remains compact despite conveying several nuances.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return shape as a lightweight numeric evidence graph and a capability report. It does not detail pagination or response layout, but the schema covers limit and format, and the tool is simple enough that no major missing context blocks correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining parameter combinations: value and/or function, and what happens if both are omitted (capability report). This clarifies behavior that the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the lightweight numeric evidence graph guards expose for a value'. It also clearly distinguishes the tool from a full interval solver, which separates it from related analysis tools. The capability-report fallback is also explicitly mentioned.

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 tool gives concrete scoping instructions: 'Scope with value and/or function; omit both for the capability report.' It also clarifies what the tool is not ('not a full interval solve'), but it does not name an alternative sibling tool, so the when-not guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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