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

The description mentions 'Expression discarded', hinting at no persistence, but it does not disclose any side effects or behaviors related to the nine parameters in the schema. Without annotations, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 very concise, but the structure is minimal—two short phrases. It is not overly verbose, yet it lacks meaningful organization or detail that would aid understanding.

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 has nine parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the arithmetic operation, what inputs are expected, or what the tool returns. The description fails to provide essential context for correct usage.

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 description does not explain any of the parameters, and the schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL') are completely unrelated to arithmetic. This mismatch makes the parameters effectively meaningless in the context of the stated purpose.

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 evaluates a+b style arithmetic, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like validate-json or search-query-len, though it does not elaborate on the exact form of arithmetic.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It only states the action without context.

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