tan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a pure stateless trig computation there is little behavior to disclose. It conveys the unit convention (radians) but says nothing about the return value's nature (a unitless ratio, unbounded) or undefined cases. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the operation first, the alternative second. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 one-parameter, 100%-documented math function with no output schema, the definition supplies purpose and an alternative route, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. A brief note on the return value (unitless ratio) would have closed the remaining gap.

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 100% and the single parameter ('The number in radians to find the tangent of') already documents both meaning and unit. The description's mention of radians matches rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculates the tangent of a number') and pins the unit ('in radians'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like sin, cos, arctan, and degreesToRadians. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path for multi-step work ('For several operations or chained steps in one call, use batch_calc'), giving a clear routing rule. It stops short of a full when/when-not treatment (e.g., no note that input must be radians rather than degrees, despite degreesToRadians being a sibling).

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