least_common_multiple

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'exact' and 'safe integers', hinting at no overflow, and discloses the return type as decimal string. However, it does not address edge cases such as behavior with negative numbers or zero, nor does it state that LCM is always positive.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and without any unnecessary words or repetition. Every part contributes to the understanding of the tool's function.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the input type, output format, and core functionality. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the LCM is always positive or how zero is handled.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'two safe integers', which aligns with the two parameters but offers no additional semantic detail about what each parameter represents (e.g., first number, second number). The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Finds', the resource 'least common multiple', and specifies it operates on two safe integers, returning a decimal string. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'greatest_common_divisor' and clearly defines its purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'greatest_common_divisor' or other mathematical operations. The description implies usage for LCM computation but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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