math_multiply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Multiply two numbers' implies a pure, side-effect-free calculation, but it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, what the return value is, or any edge-case behavior. For a simple arithmetic operation, this minimal disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a tool of this trivial complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally mention that the tool returns the product. 'Multiply two numbers' strongly implies a numeric result, making the tool callable, but the lack of an explicit return-value statement leaves a minor gap. Error behavior and edge cases are also absent, but for multiplication this is not critical.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It refers to 'two numbers', which generally maps to parameters a and b, but it adds no detail beyond the schema's type declarations. Since multiplication is commutative, parameter ordering is irrelevant, and the schema already makes the types clear; the description provides just enough context.

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 'Multiply' with a clear resource ('two numbers'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like math_add and math_divide. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without needing to inspect other definitions.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of math_add and math_divide as siblings makes such guidance valuable, but the description simply states the operation without any mention of selection criteria or exclusions.

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