bnrrootnumber

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the core action but fails to mention important traits such as return type, side effects (e.g., computation cost), or required inputs beyond the schema.

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 concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'root number' or the role of the optional 'character' parameter, leaving the agent with incomplete context for correct invocation.

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 100% coverage with individual descriptions for each parameter, providing basic semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already offers, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Compute') and identifies the resource ('root number of Artin L-function'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'bnrL1', the unique term 'root number' provides sufficient distinction.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The agent is left without any usage hints.

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