greater_than

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'checks' a condition, implying a read-only operation that returns a boolean, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic operation.

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 and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category in parentheses. There is no wasted text, and every part contributes essential information. The structure is clear and efficient.

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's low complexity (simple comparison), no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and parameter roles, but lacks details on return values (e.g., boolean result), error cases, or usage context. For such a simple tool, it meets basic needs but could be more informative.

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 meaningful context for the parameters: it clarifies that 'a' is 'the first number' and 'b' is 'the second number', and specifies the comparison order ('first number is greater than the second number'). Since the schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), this compensates well by explaining the semantic roles, though it does not detail data types or constraints beyond 'number'.

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 the first number is greater than the second number.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('numbers'), and domain/category. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'greater_than_or_equal', 'less_than', or 'equal', which are closely related comparison operations.

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 mentions the domain (arithmetic) and category (comparison), but does not specify scenarios where this exact comparison is appropriate over other comparison tools (e.g., 'greater_than_or_equal' for inclusive checks). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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