multiply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a pure, deterministic arithmetic operation with no side effects, but does not state the return value, error behavior, or any other trait beyond the operation itself. For a trivial pure function this is adequate but minimal.

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 waste. Every word earns its place and the operation is stated immediately.

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 a simple schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; an agent can call it correctly. It stops short of stating the product/return value, which would make it fully complete.

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 should compensate, but 'two numbers' merely restates the schema's type: number for both a and b. It does not name or otherwise clarify the parameters, adding no semantic value beyond the structured schema.

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 verb (multiply) and resource (two numbers), making the operation immediately identifiable. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools add, subtract, and divide by naming the multiplication operation.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not reference the sibling alternatives (add, subtract, divide). Usage is inferable from the universal meaning of multiplication, but nothing explicit is provided.

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