factorial

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the core operation but does not disclose what happens for 0 (returns 1), how very large inputs are handled, or potential overflow/errors. Given the maximum input allowed, these are significant omissions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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 simplicity of the operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return values and edge cases, especially for a tool accepting inputs up to 9007199254740991. No output schema exists to clarify the result format, leaving a 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies parameter 'a' is the number to compute factorial for, but adds no detail about format, range, or special values beyond what the schema already specifies. This is minimal added value.

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 'Calculate factorial of a number' clearly states the function with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like sell_stock or add_two_numbers. However, it does not mention the input must be a non-negative integer, which is a meaningful constraint, but the schema covers that.

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. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling math tools like add_two_numbers. The usage is only implied by the function name.

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