basic_arithmetic

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It mentions 'high-precision calculations' (via use_decimal) but fails to disclose error handling, return format, or edge cases (e.g., division by zero). Vital behavioral traits are omitted.

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, with only a brief sentence and two examples. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every part earns its place.

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 arithmetic tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks information about return value type, error behavior, or complex operation details. Given the tool's straightforward nature, a score of 3 reflects the bare minimum 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with property descriptions. The description adds value through concrete examples showing correct parameter usage (e.g., numbers list, precision argument). This helps an agent understand formatting beyond the schema.

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 'basic arithmetic operations' and provides specific examples ('add', 'multiply'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'expression_evaluator' or 'precision_calculator', nor does it explicitly state the scope (only basic operations). A score of 4 is appropriate for clarity without sibling distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The examples imply straightforward use cases, but no explicit comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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