is_valid_base

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 validity within a range (2-36), implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but lacks details on error handling, return format, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence directly states the tool's purpose and parameter constraint, followed by domain/category tags. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances. For a validation tool in a complex sibling set, more context is needed to ensure proper agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'base' parameter must be 'between 2 and 36,' adding meaningful constraints beyond the schema's generic integer type. However, it does not explain edge cases or validation logic, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 base value is valid (between 2 and 36).' It specifies the verb ('Check'), resource ('base value'), and domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'validate_number_in_base'), 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 minimal guidance: it mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('number_systems'), but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. Without clear usage context or differentiation from similar tools, it falls short of adequate guidance.

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