multiply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, but for a pure arithmetic operation 'multiply two numbers' adequately implies a side-effect-free computation that returns the product. It does not explicitly say there are no side effects or describe edge cases, but the output schema covers return expectations and the operation is simple enough that nothing critical is hidden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and for a two-parameter arithmetic operation this is appropriately 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?

The tool is extremely simple, the input schema fully defines the two parameters, and an output schema exists. The concise description is complete for an agent to select and correctly invoke this tool; no additional context about authentication, side effects, or return values is necessary 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Two numbers' maps directly to the two required integer parameters, a and b, and multiplication is order-independent, so the mapping is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not name the parameters explicitly, but the schema already provides their titles and types.

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 the operation precisely with a specific verb and object: 'Multiply two numbers.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the arithmetic siblings add, subtract, and divide, and from the string/utility siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the intended use is strongly implied by the operation name and description. An agent can infer that multiply should be used for multiplication while add, subtract, and divide handle the other basic operations, though no exclusions are stated.

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