divide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no behavior for b=0, no statement about return type or floating-point precision, no error semantics. For an unannotated tool this is a notable gap, even if the operation is mathematically simple.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; operand order is stated first. Nothing can be trimmed without losing the order semantics.

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 two-parameter arithmetic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but omits the one thing an agent would want to know before invoking it: what happens when the divisor is zero.

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 must compensate. It does clarify operand order by labeling the inputs 'first number' and 'second number', which maps implicitly to a and b and is genuinely useful for a non-commutative op. However, it adds no type constraints, formats, or notes on the second parameter being a divisor (non-zero).

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 operation (divide) and explicitly maps operand order: first number divided by second. This order matters for a non-commutative operation, so it is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the arithmetic siblings, though the name makes the distinction obvious.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus add/subtract/multiply, and no mention of edge conditions such as division by zero. Usage is only implied by the obvious purpose of the tool.

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