math_multiply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return value ('the product'). However, it says nothing about numeric edge cases an agent might care about, such as non-integer inputs, very large values, precision, or overflow behavior. For a pure arithmetic function this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, operands, and result are all stated in the minimum space required.

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 values need not be explained, and the tool takes only two required numbers. The definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; the only shortfall is the absence of any operand or edge-case detail.

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%: parameters are only 'a' and 'b' with titles 'A'/'B' and no descriptions. The phrase 'two numbers' implicitly confirms the arity and operand type, but it adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema's type declaration and does not compensate for the zero coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers') and states the result ('return the product'), so its operation is instantly distinguishable from siblings like math_add, math_subtract, and math_divide. It does not differentiate itself from any near-equivalent mechanism (e.g., math_power with exponent 2), but for a binary arithmetic primitive the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as math_power for repeated multiplication. The name makes the usage inferable, but the description itself supplies no guidance.

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