add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and says nothing about the return value, numeric precision, overflow behavior, or ordering of operands. For a pure arithmetic function most of this is obvious, but the description adds no behavioral context at all.

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?

A single four-word sentence with no filler and the operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it under-specifies rather than being optimally sized.

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 trivial two-parameter arithmetic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer the intent. It omits the return value (the sum) and any operand semantics, which are the only remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only says 'two numbers', which loosely maps to the two required params a and b. It does not name, order, or disambiguate them beyond their type, leaving the schema to carry the meaning.

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 operands ('Add two numbers'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings multiply/divide/subtract, but the verb alone is distinctive enough for an agent to select correctly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling arithmetic tools. The operation is self-evident, but the description provides no routing context whatsoever.

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