close_to_zero

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for floating-point comparisons', which hints at its application but does not detail behavioral traits such as return format (e.g., boolean or numeric), error handling, performance characteristics, or specific floating-point considerations. The description lacks depth for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or detailed usage context. For a comparison tool with floating-point implications, more information on behavior and parameters is needed to be fully helpful.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'tolerance' but does not explain its role, default value, or units. The parameter 'x' is not described at all. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to clarify how parameters interact or what 'close to zero' means operationally.

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: 'Check if a number is close to zero within a tolerance.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('a number'), and context ('floating-point comparisons'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'approximately_equal' or 'is_close', which likely serve similar comparison functions.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Useful for floating-point comparisons' and categorizing it under 'arithmetic' and 'comparison'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approximately_equal' or 'is_close' (which are siblings), nor does it outline any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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