is_normal

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 describes the tool's behavior (checking for normality) but does not disclose additional traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or return format. While the core functionality is clear, more behavioral context would be beneficial given the lack of annotations.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and context. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and domain.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and context but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or examples. For a simple comparison tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, and the tool has one parameter ('x'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'x' is a number. Since schema coverage is low, the description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's role or constraints, resulting in a baseline score.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a number'), and defines the mathematical condition ('normal' meaning finite, non-zero, and not subnormal). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'is_finite', 'is_infinite', or 'is_nan' by specifying this particular combination of properties.

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 clear context by specifying the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('comparison'), which helps situate the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'is_finite' or 'is_nan'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some guidance implicit.

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