find_amicable_pairs

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 action ('find all amicable number pairs') but does not describe key behaviors such as output format (e.g., list of pairs, JSON structure), performance characteristics (e.g., time complexity for large limits), error handling, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. The domain and category in parentheses are slightly redundant but not wasteful. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of pairs, error messages) or behavioral aspects like performance limits. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it falls short.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It mentions 'up to limit,' which clarifies the parameter's role but does not provide details like valid ranges, units, or examples (e.g., must be positive integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not informative, aligning with the baseline expectation for such coverage.

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: 'Find all amicable number pairs up to limit.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('amicable number pairs'), and scope ('up to limit'), which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'is_amicable_number' or other number-theoretic tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It lacks context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'is_amicable_number' or 'amicable_numbers' (if they existed). The domain and category tags ('arithmetic, special_numbers') are too generic to offer meaningful usage direction.

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