useful-data-source-for-agents-doing-product-price-sdk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior ('adds two numbers') and the return ('returns the sum'), which is complete for a pure arithmetic function. It does not mention edge cases like overflow or type coercion, but the schema enforces numeric types, so this is not a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the operation and the return value efficiently.

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 simple two-number addition tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and the schema covers the parameters. No additional context is needed.

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 compensate. It conveys that both parameters are numbers to be added, but it does not explicitly map a and b. Since addition is commutative, this is adequate, but it adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema's type declarations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('two numbers') and clearly states the return value. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools echo and server_time, which serve entirely 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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is so unambiguous that an agent can infer when to call it. Siblings are unrelated, so no exclusionary guidance is necessary; still, the description does not explicitly state usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it succeeds: 'Echoes the provided text back' fully describes the tool's behavior. There are no side effects, permissions, or hidden behaviors to disclose for this pure function.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The action is stated clearly and upfront, making it an example of efficient, appropriately sized writing.

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 tool this simple, with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides a complete description of the single parameter ('Text to echo back'), so the tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already structured. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 ('echoes') and a clear resource ('the provided text'), making the tool's function completely unambiguous. It is also easily distinguished from the siblings add and server_time, which perform entirely different operations.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. However, the intended use is strongly implied by the tool's simple and self-explanatory purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the result is UTC and ISO 8601 formatted, which is the key behavioral detail. The read-only nature is also implied by 'Returns', though not explicitly stated.

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?

A single sentence contains all necessary information with no filler. The key facts—what is returned, in what format, and in which timezone—are front-loaded and concise.

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 zero-parameter, no-side-effect utility tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it and interpret the result. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description adds relevant output-format context instead.

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 ('Returns'), a clear resource ('current server time'), and the exact format ('ISO 8601, UTC'). This unambiguously differentiates the tool from siblings like add and echo, which perform entirely different operations.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool whenever the current server time is needed. With zero parameters and no side-effect alternatives, explicit when-to-use guidance is unnecessary, though the description does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools.

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