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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add two numbers' implies a pure mathematical function, but it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 extremely concise with just three words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While the operation is clear, it doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or return values. For even a simple tool, the description should provide more complete context about what the tool does and how to use it properly.

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%, meaning neither parameter has documentation in the schema. The description 'Add two numbers' implies there are two numeric parameters but doesn't name them, explain their roles, or provide any semantic context beyond what's obvious from the tool name. This doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Add two numbers' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It's specific about what mathematical operation is performed. However, since there are no sibling tools, the lack of differentiation from alternatives doesn't reduce the score.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage. While the tool's purpose is simple, the description offers no usage instructions beyond the basic operation.

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