add_two_numbers

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 accurately discloses the core behavior as a calculation and implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is a pure/read-only operation or describe the return value format.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.

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?

The tool is extremely simple: the schema fully defines the two numeric inputs. The description lacks an explicit statement about the return value, but for a sum function this is readily inferable. The sibling tools indicate a mixed-purpose collection but no additional context is required to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'two numbers' which maps generally to parameters a and b, but it does not name them or explain their roles. The addition context makes their meaning implicit, but there is no explicit parameter-level clarification.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calculate' and identifies the resource as 'sum of two numbers', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like factorial and stock operations because it explicitly states the addition operation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as factorial or stock trading tools. There are no stated use cases, exclusions, or context cues to help an agent decide among siblings.

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