half_angle_formulas

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 states the tool calculates trigonometric functions but does not describe output format, error handling, computational limits, or whether it requires specific input units (e.g., radians vs. degrees). For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional domain/category context is brief and relevant. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (trigonometric calculations), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or output expectations, making it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the 'angle' parameter (e.g., expected units, range) or the 'function' parameter beyond what the enum in the schema provides. The description adds no semantic details about parameters, leaving them inadequately documented.

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 trigonometric functions using half angle formulas.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('trigonometric functions'), and method ('half angle formulas'), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'double_angle_formulas' or other trigonometric 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 mentions the domain ('trigonometry') and category ('identities'), which implies context, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'double_angle_formulas' or basic trigonometric functions (e.g., 'sin', 'cos'). This lack of explicit guidance limits its helpfulness.

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