divide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the operation and omits edge cases such as division by zero behavior, return type, or error handling. The schema mentions the denominator constraint, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately and clearly conveys the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 complete input schema and an output schema present. The description is adequate for understanding the tool's function; the only minor gap is lack of explicit edge-case behavior, but the schema already covers the zero-denominator restriction.

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 schema provides 100% parameter description coverage ('Numerator', 'Denominator (cannot be zero)'). The description merely restates the operation without adding new semantics for 'a' or 'b', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'divide' and specifies the operand order ('first number by second number'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools add, subtract, and multiply.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when division of two numbers is needed) and implicitly contrasts with the other arithmetic operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the simplicity of the operation makes the usage obvious.

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