is_proper_fraction

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 the tool 'checks' a condition, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for zero denominators), performance, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check if a fraction is proper') and includes essential context in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 doesn't explain the return value (e.g., boolean), error conditions, or edge cases (like negative numbers or zero denominators). For a tool with two parameters and mathematical logic, more context is needed for reliable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that parameters represent 'numerator' and 'denominator' for fraction checking. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema types (integers) by clarifying their roles in the fraction propriety condition, though it doesn't detail constraints like non-zero denominators.

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 ('fraction'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the mathematical condition 'numerator < denominator'. The domain/category context further clarifies its niche in arithmetic/egyptian fractions.

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 implies usage for checking fraction propriety but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'is_unit_fraction' or 'improper_to_egyptian'. The domain/category hints at context but lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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