subtract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the core operation but does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., floating-point precision, negative results) or return behavior. For such a simple numeric operation, this is a minor gap but still leaves room for improvement.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential operation.

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 simple arithmetic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the operation and parameter order. However, it does not explicitly state edge cases or the exact return format, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with each parameter described as 'First number' and 'Second number.' The description reinforces the order (first minus second) but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation: 'Subtract second number from first number.' It specifies the verb (subtract) and the resource (numbers), making it distinct from siblings like add, multiply, and divide.

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 implies when to use it (when subtraction is needed) and its order-sensitivity (second from first), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the siblings are mathematical operations, the usage context is fairly obvious.

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