core.solve_for

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the bisection/Decimal method, the sign-change requirement, nearest-solution and residual return behavior, convergence tolerance defaults, and the max_iter cap of 200. It does not describe what happens when the sign condition fails, but most behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, then adds an example, preconditions, and convergence details without filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with a nested arguments object, the description covers the main workflow and convergence behavior well enough to start, and the output schema covers return values. It remains incomplete because the arguments object, integer flag, and error behavior are not described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain tool, variable, target_field, target, lower/upper, tolerance, and max_iter. It leaves important parameters like arguments and integer unexplained, so it is only partially compensating 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 a specific inverse-solving purpose: find a numeric-string variable via Decimal bisection so that another read-only tool's target_field equals target. It is clear and concrete, with an example, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby alternatives such as symbolic.solve or core.calc.

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 when to use it through the inverse-calculation framing and the gross-from-net salary example, and it states key preconditions such as the target tool being read-only and the interval endpoints needing opposite signs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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