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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Expression discarded,' which hints that the input is not retained. No other side effects, return behavior, or error handling are mentioned, and there are no annotations to fill the 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?

The description is very short and free of fluff, making it easy to read. However, it is so terse that it omits critical information, balancing the conciseness score down slightly.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the return value, which parameter to use, or what 'discarded' means in practice, so an agent cannot reliably call it.

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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, none of them relate to arithmetic expressions. The tool description does not specify which of the nine string parameters holds the expression, so the parameter semantics are effectively unexplained for this tool's 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 states a specific action (evaluate) and resource (a+b style arithmetic), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, the phrase 'Expression discarded' and the mismatch with the input schema create some ambiguity about what exactly is being evaluated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about the intended input. The description only says to evaluate arithmetic and that the expression is discarded, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke it.

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