floor_multiple

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it specifies rounding direction ('toward zero'), which is crucial for negative numbers, and mentions the arithmetic domain. However, it doesn't address error handling or edge cases like zero significance.

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 with the core functionality in the first sentence. The parenthetical domain/category adds minimal but useful context 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?

For a simple arithmetic tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on parameter semantics and edge cases. It covers the basic operation but leaves gaps in full usability.

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, but it only vaguely references 'number' and 'significance' without explaining their roles, constraints, or examples. No additional meaning beyond the bare parameter names is provided.

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 with a specific verb ('Round down') and resource ('a number'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'toward zero' behavior, unlike generic rounding tools. It also includes domain/category context.

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 implies usage for arithmetic rounding operations but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'floor', 'ceil', or 'ceiling_multiple'. No specific exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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