asinh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool calculates without describing behavior: no information about input domain restrictions (e.g., valid range for x), error handling, precision, or output format. For a mathematical function with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 (one sentence plus parenthetical) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds domain/category context. Every element earns its place in this minimal description.

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 mathematical function with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the mathematical definition, input constraints, output interpretation, or relationship to sibling tools. The category label helps minimally, but key contextual information is missing.

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 must compensate. It provides no parameter information beyond what's in the schema (single parameter 'x'). No explanation of what 'x' represents mathematically, acceptable values, units, or special cases. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Calculate inverse hyperbolic sine (area sine).' It specifies the mathematical function and provides domain/category context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'asinh' vs 'acosh' or 'atanh' beyond the category label.

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 versus alternatives. While it mentions the category 'inverse_hyperbolic', it doesn't explain when to choose asinh over other inverse hyperbolic functions or trigonometric functions. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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