Multiplication Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Multiply two numbers' clearly indicates a pure arithmetic computation with no side effects, but it does not disclose return format, precision behavior, or edge cases. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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 at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it leans toward a fragment rather than a complete sentence and does not include any usage context.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the overlapping 'calculate' sibling, and it does not mention any behavioral constraints. This leaves a small but meaningful gap in completeness.

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 input schema already describes both parameters ('First number' and 'Second number') with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'two numbers' adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Multiply') and a resource ('two numbers'), making the tool's basic function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from 'add' and 'get-time', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the more generic 'calculate' sibling.

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 implies usage for multiplication but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling 'calculate' or 'add'. There are no alternative tool references or exclusion criteria, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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