quotient

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 mentions the operation is equivalent to 'a // b', which clarifies the integer division behavior, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance, or output format, leaving gaps 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, with every sentence earning its place: it defines the tool's purpose, provides a programming equivalent, and adds domain/category tags without any wasted words.

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 (two integer parameters) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on error cases and exact return values. It covers the basic operation but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, making it adequate but with clear 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 compensates by explaining the parameters implicitly through the example 'a // b', where 'a' and 'b' correspond to 'dividend' and 'divisor'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail constraints like non-zero divisors.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('integer quotient of division without remainder'), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting its arithmetic domain and general category, which helps differentiate it from other mathematical tools like 'divide' or 'remainder'.

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 and category tags ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: general'), suggesting it's for arithmetic operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'divide' or 'remainder', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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