math_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: it adds inputs and returns the sum. However, it says nothing about how non-integer/float inputs, precision, or overflow are handled, which are the behaviors an agent might care about for a numeric tool.

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 short sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered structurally. For a two-argument pure arithmetic function, the description is nearly sufficient; only per-parameter naming/typing detail is missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 both parameters are named 'a' and 'b' with no titles beyond 'A'/'B'. The description partially compensates by stating both inputs are numbers, but it does not clarify which operand maps to which parameter or that they are interchangeable in a sum.

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 (add) and resource (two numbers) and the result (the sum), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like math_subtract or math_multiply, though the name makes the distinction obvious.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as math_subtract or math_power; usage must be inferred entirely from the name. No preconditions, no exclusions, no routing advice.

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