multiply

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. It states what the tool does ('multiply two numbers') but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or side effects. For a mathematical operation, this might be acceptable, but it lacks depth for more complex scenarios.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple mathematical tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (basic arithmetic), two parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool. It covers the purpose and parameter count, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are minor gaps for this context.

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 description implies two parameters ('two numbers'), which aligns with the input schema's two required parameters (a and b). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful context by specifying the operation and parameter count, though it doesn't detail parameter types or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With 0 parameters documented in the schema, the description adequately compensates.

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 verb ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' or 'subtract' by specifying multiplication, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation. The description is specific but lacks explicit comparison to alternatives.

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 like 'add', 'divide', or 'power'. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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