multiply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing beyond the operation, but multiplication is an inherently pure, side-effect-free function, so the behavioral profile is self-evident to an agent. No edge-case context (overflow, float precision, operand order) is added.

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 filler. Every word earns its place and the operation is stated 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 no explanation, and the tool is a trivial two-operand primitive. The definition is adequate for correct invocation, though it could note operand semantics or precision behavior.

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 'a' and 'b' carry only bare titles. The description's phrase 'two numbers' partially compensates by fixing the operand type and count, but adds no meaning about order, range, or behavior beyond that.

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 (multiply) and its operand resource (two numbers). Within a family of arithmetic siblings (add, subtract, power), the operation itself is fully unambiguous and needs no further differentiation.

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 when-not-to-use guidance, but for a primitive binary arithmetic operation the correct usage is implied by the description and the sibling operation names. No alternative routing is offered.

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