modular

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'perform operations,' omitting whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects. The minimal description fails to inform about behavior beyond a generic computation.

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 too brief, a single vague sentence. While concise, it sacrifices essential detail. Front-loading is irrelevant when the content is insufficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and no parameter descriptions, the one-line description is grossly incomplete. Even with an output schema, critical details like operation types and input formats are missing, making the tool nearly impossible to invoke correctly.

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 the description adds no meaning to parameters. The agent cannot determine valid values for 'operation,' format for 'a'/'b', or the role of optional parameters, making the tool nearly unusable without external knowledge.

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 it performs modular arithmetic operations, which is a specific domain. However, it does not specify which operations (e.g., addition, multiplication, exponentiation) are supported, leaving ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gcd_lcm' or 'factor' but lacks precision.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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