not_equal

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 checks inequality but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or return format (e.g., boolean). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: one sentence states the core purpose, followed by domain/category 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, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and usage nuances, which are essential for effective tool invocation despite the simple operation.

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 two parameters (a, b) with 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'two numbers,' but doesn't explain parameter roles, constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, though the tool's simplicity mitigates this somewhat.

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 two numbers are not equal.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('two numbers'), and operation ('not equal'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'equal' tool, which is a close alternative, though the domain/category context helps.

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 through the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('comparison'), suggesting it's for numerical comparisons. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'equal' or other comparison tools (e.g., 'greater_than'), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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