is_pronic_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' a number, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., boolean, string), error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 and front-loaded: 'Check if a number is a pronic number.' The additional domain/category note is brief and relevant. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a pronic number is, what the return value signifies, or any edge cases. For a tool that performs a specific mathematical check, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 description does not mention the parameter 'num' at all. However, since there is only one parameter and its type is clear (integer), the baseline is 3. The description does not add any semantic context beyond what the schema minimally provides (e.g., explaining what a 'pronic number' is or valid ranges).

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 pronic number.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and the resource ('a pronic number'), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other number-checking tools like is_triangular_number), 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 ('arithmetic') and category ('figurate_numbers'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between similar sibling tools like is_triangular_number or is_pentagonal_number. No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are provided.

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