is_abundant_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like input constraints (e.g., valid integer ranges), performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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—one sentence plus domain/category tags—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently includes additional 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the mathematical concept but lacks details on input validation, output format, error cases, and practical usage. For a tool with these contextual gaps, the description should provide more operational information.

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, but the description adds some semantic context by explaining that 'n' is the number being checked for abundance. However, it doesn't specify constraints (e.g., positive integers only) or provide examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description offers basic but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a number'), and defines the mathematical condition ('sum of proper divisors > n'). It also includes domain/category tags that help distinguish it from sibling tools like 'is_deficient_number' or 'is_perfect_number'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions the domain/category, it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or compare it to related tools like 'is_deficient_number' or 'is_perfect_number' that check similar number properties.

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