less_than

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 states the tool performs a comparison check but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. The description is basic and lacks details needed for full transparency in the absence 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: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category tags in parentheses. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy 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 tool's low complexity (simple comparison), two parameters with basic schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks details on output (e.g., boolean result) and error cases. For such a simple tool, it's passable but could be more informative.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies that parameter 'a' is 'the first number' and 'b' is 'the second number', and that the tool checks if 'a' is less than 'b'. This compensates somewhat for the lack of schema descriptions. However, it doesn't specify numeric types (e.g., integer vs. float) or constraints beyond what the schema implies.

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 the first number is less than the second number.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('numbers'), and distinguishes it from other arithmetic tools by focusing on comparison. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'greater_than' beyond the domain/category tags.

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 usage guidance. It includes domain and category tags ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: comparison'), which imply context but don't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'greater_than', 'equal', or 'less_than_or_equal'. No specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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