divide

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 explicitly states that b must not be zero, and that a zero denominator results in an error message rather than an exception. This covers the key behavioral edge case. It also mentions the return type (string), which is useful. While it does not discuss side effects (there are none) or permissions, these are not relevant for a pure arithmetic 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening statement followed by parameter explanations and a return specification. There is zero fluff; every sentence earns its place. The key operation is front-loaded, and the args/returns format is easy to parse.

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?

For a simple arithmetic tool, the description is complete. It explains the inputs, the output format (string), and the error condition (zero denominator). Even though an output schema exists, the description provides the essential information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. There are no hidden requirements or missing details.

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 description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It clearly defines a as 'the numerator' and b as 'the denominator', and adds the constraint that b must not be zero. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaning beyond the raw numeric type.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Divide the first number by the second') that unambiguously identifies the operation. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like add, subtract, multiply, and power without any ambiguity. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: whenever division is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the arithmetic sibling set, the intended use is obvious. There are no competing tools that could be confused with division, so the guidance is adequate without being explicit.

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