multiply

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as edge cases or limitations.

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 a single sentence plus structured Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

This is a simple arithmetic tool with a clear purpose, minimal parameters, and annotations covering safety. The description covers the operation, parameters, and return value adequately for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It briefly defines 'a' and 'b' as 'first number' and 'second number,' which adds minimal but sufficient meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Multiply two numbers together.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (add, subtract, divide, power) by explicitly naming multiplication.

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 usage is implied by the clear purpose, but the description does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance like 'for addition, use add'.

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