multiply

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the return value is a string containing the product, which is a key behavioral detail. It does not mention side effects, but for a pure calculation tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of a single operation statement, a clear list of arguments, and a return type. Every sentence is necessary and no filler or redundancy exists.

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 fully covers the operation, inputs, and output. There are no missing details that would prevent correct usage, and the scope is narrow enough that additional context would be superfluous.

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 schema already defines both parameters as required numbers, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by labeling them as 'the first number' and 'the second number,' which is a trivial restatement of positional intent and does not introduce new constraints or semantics.

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 operation: 'Multiply two numbers together.' This is a specific verb with a clear resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add, subtract, and divide by its unique function.

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 when multiplication is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of edge cases or conditions that would guide selection among the sibling arithmetic tools.

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