format_format_ordinal

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It only provides examples and does not disclose behavior for negative numbers, large inputs, or other edge cases. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise, front-loading examples that immediately convey the tool's function. Every word is necessary and nothing is wasted.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks mention of valid input range or behavior for non-positive integers, which could be useful for completeness.

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?

With 0% parameter description coverage in the schema, the description compensates by showing concrete input-output mappings. Although the parameter 'n' is not explicitly defined, the examples effectively convey its meaning. A more explicit description would be ideal, but the examples suffice.

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 shows the transformation from integer to ordinal string via examples (e.g., 1 to '1st'), making the purpose unmistakable. It is specific and distinguished from sibling format tools like format_number or format_plural.

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 implies usage when ordinal formatting is needed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions.

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