divide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation but does not mention error handling for division by zero, potential precision issues, or return value expectations. The schema does note that b cannot be zero, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the operation.

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 short sentence, directly stating the operation with no superfluous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple arithmetic tool with two parameters, the description and schema together are largely sufficient. It could optionally mention error behavior for b=0, but the schema already indicates the constraint, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (a as dividend, b as divisor, with constraint b cannot be zero). The description only restates the operation and does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already covers.

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 clearly states the tool computes the quotient of two numbers (a ÷ b), using a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('quotient'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, subtract, and multiply.

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 implies the tool is used when division is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No contextual guidance is provided beyond the operation itself.

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