subtract

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying operand order (a is subtracted from, b is subtracted) and explicitly stating the return value ('The result of a minus b'). No contradiction with 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 concise, with a clear first line followed by a structured Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 function with two numeric inputs and a numeric output, the description fully covers operation, parameters, and return value. Output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, so the description is complete.

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% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining each parameter: 'a: The number to subtract from' and 'b: The number to subtract.' Both parameters are clearly semantically described.

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 'Subtract the second number from the first,' which is a specific action and resource. It unambiguously differentiates this tool from siblings like add, multiply, and divide.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the operation is self-explanatory and usage is implied by the name and description. There is no comparison to siblings, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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