pluperfect_numbers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'finds' numbers, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify output format, performance characteristics, error handling, or computational complexity. For a mathematical computation tool with two parameters, this lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 brief and to the point—one sentence plus domain/category tags. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the specialized term 'pluperfect digital invariant numbers' without explanation reduces clarity, slightly undermining efficiency.

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, no output schema, and two parameters for a specialized mathematical tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the mathematical concept, parameter roles, return format, or error conditions. The domain/category tags add minimal context, leaving significant gaps for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'up to limit' and includes 'power' in parentheses, hinting at the two parameters, but doesn't explain what 'limit' and 'power' represent mathematically, their valid ranges, or how they interact. This insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 states the tool finds 'pluperfect digital invariant numbers up to limit' with domain/category context, which clarifies the mathematical operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'pluperfect digital invariant numbers' are (a specialized term) or how they differ from similar sibling tools like 'armstrong_numbers' or 'narcissistic_numbers', leaving the purpose somewhat vague for non-experts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes domain/category tags ('arithmetic', 'special_numbers'), but this doesn't help differentiate it from many sibling tools in the same categories (e.g., 'armstrong_numbers', 'happy_numbers'). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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