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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Multiply two numbers' implies a mathematical operation but does not disclose traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance, or side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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's low complexity (simple multiplication), two parameters with no schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are minor gaps for this straightforward tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that the parameters are 'two numbers,' clarifying their purpose. With schema description coverage at 0% (parameters 'a' and 'b' have no descriptions in the schema), this compensates well, though it does not detail constraints like integer vs. decimal.

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 'Multiply two numbers' clearly states the specific verb ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add' (addition), 'delete_note' (deletion), and 'save_note' (saving). It is precise and unambiguous.

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. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add' for addition, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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