ceiling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states 'rounds up', which implies towards positive infinity, but does not explicitly clarify behavior for negative numbers or special cases (NaN, infinity). It is adequate but lacks specificity.

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 short sentence with no filler. Every word is necessary. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It explains the function and the parameter. It could mention edge cases, but for a basic mathematical operation this is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'number' has description 'The number to round up'. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 action: 'Rounds a number up to the nearest integer'. It uses a specific verb ('Rounds') and identifies the resource (number and integer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like floor (rounds down) and round (rounds to nearest).

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 over alternatives (e.g., floor, round). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For a simple math function, no guidance is acceptable but keeps score low.

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