subtract

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. For a pure arithmetic function there is little to disclose, but the description says nothing about result format, return type, or precision, so it adds no behavioral context beyond the operation name.

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 clause, front-loaded with the verb and containing zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given a two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema arithmetic tool, the description supplies the one non-obvious fact (operand order) and is complete enough to call correctly. Minor gaps remain around return type/precision, but those are low stakes here.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameters are named only 'a' and 'b'. The description compensates well by defining the operand order: a minus b, i.e., 'subtract the second number from the first number'. That mapping is the key detail an agent needs and would otherwise have to guess.

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 (Subtract) and the exact operands and their order ('second number from the first number'). The ordering detail distinguishes it from the ambiguous naming of siblings like divide, and an agent can call it correctly from the description alone.

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 operation is self-evident and the sibling set (add, multiply, divide) makes the choice obvious, so usage is implied rather than stated. There are no exclusions, edge-case notes (e.g., negative results), or explicit routing, which keeps this at the minimum viable level.

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