Multi MCP

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 computational operation but doesn't specify behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., overflow), input constraints (e.g., numeric types), or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with 'Multiply two numbers,' a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource.

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 (a simple multiplication operation) and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks details on behavior and usage. Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more context on how the tool works and what it returns, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are defined in the schema. The description mentions 'two numbers,' which implies two inputs, but since the schema explicitly defines no properties, this is a minor semantic addition. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 verb ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculator__add' by specifying multiplication rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential mathematical operations beyond the named siblings.

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 doesn't mention when multiplication is appropriate compared to addition or other operations, nor does it reference the sibling tools or any contextual prerequisites. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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