multiply

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the multiplication action without details on error handling (e.g., overflow, non-numeric inputs), performance, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic operation.

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 function, followed by domain and category tags. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (two numeric parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances, which are essential even for basic operations. The domain/category tags add some context but do not fill these gaps.

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, but the description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'two numbers' as inputs, aligning with parameters 'a' and 'b'. However, it does not explain data types, constraints, or examples, providing only basic context without compensating fully for the schema's lack of detail.

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 ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'product' or 'element_wise_multiply', which might serve similar arithmetic functions, leaving room for ambiguity in selection.

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, such as 'product' for multiplying multiple numbers or 'element_wise_multiply' for vector operations. It only states the basic action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal help in tool selection.

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