divide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about edge cases such as division by zero or how errors are surfaced. For a pure arithmetic tool the risk is low, but the denominator-nonzero constraint is left entirely unstated.

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 zero waste that states the operation and operand order immediately.

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 operation is simple. However, the division-by-zero behavior and the a/b role assignment in the schema remain undocumented, leaving a small but real gap.

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% and the parameters are generically named 'a' and 'b', but the description meaningfully maps them ('first number by the second' → a is numerator, b is denominator). It still omits that b must be nonzero, so it partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (divide) and its operand relationship ('first number by the second'), which distinguishes it from siblings like multiply, subtract, and add. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the operation name rather than explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as mod, power, or the mean-family tools that also perform division internally. Usage is only implied by the mathematical operation name.

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