subtract

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 says nothing about purity, side effects, error behavior (e.g., non-numeric input), or return value. A pure arithmetic function has little to disclose, but the definition still adds nothing here.

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?

A single short sentence, fully front-loaded, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing the operand-order information.

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 two-parameter pure arithmetic primitive with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. Only the operand-order benefit saves it from being tautological; return-value expectations are self-evident for a subtraction primitive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline because it pins down operand order for a non-commutative operation: 'Subtract b from a' means a - b, resolving genuine ambiguity that the schema labels ('First number'/'Second number') do not.

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 states the operation and, importantly, the operand order ('b from a'), which distinguishes it from a naive reading of the name. However, it is still essentially a restatement of the tool name and offers no differentiation from siblings add/multiply/divide beyond the obvious verb change.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling arithmetic tools. For a trivial math primitive this is arguably self-evident, but the description offers no context, no constraints, and no alternatives.

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