is_keith_number

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 checks and shows a sequence, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't detail aspects like error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, stating the core functionality in a single sentence. The additional domain and category information is brief and doesn't detract from clarity. There's 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what 'show the sequence' entails would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 1 parameter ('n') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying 'n' is the number to check. It doesn't explain constraints (e.g., positive integers only) or provide examples. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, meeting the baseline but not adding substantial value.

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 a number is a Keith number and show the sequence.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('number'), and output ('show the sequence'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keith_numbers' (which likely lists Keith numbers), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 ('special_numbers'), but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'keith_numbers'). This lack of usage instructions limits its effectiveness in guiding the agent.

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