financial_analysis__safe_div

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

The description reveals that the tool returns None for zero or negative denominators instead of raising an error, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it is vague about what 'negative-meaningless' means and does not specify the return type for valid inputs (presumably a number). No annotations exist, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info.

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 very short (one sentence), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is front-loaded with a key behavioral note but lacks a clear statement of the tool's purpose. It is not well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp the function.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover the return value for valid inputs and elaborate on the edge cases. It only partially addresses invalid denominators. Missing info about valid output type and any other constraints.

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?

Neither the schema nor the description provides any semantic explanation for the parameters 'num' and 'den'. The description only mentions the denominator condition, not what the parameters represent numerically. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning to the parameters.

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 says 'None when the denominator is zero/negative-meaningless rather than raising', implying a safe division operation, but it does not explicitly state the core purpose of dividing two numbers. The verb is implied, not stated, and the resource 'division' is not named.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the siblings, there are many financial ratio tools, but no mention of how safe_div differs from a regular division or when it should be preferred.

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