Basic high precision arithmetic

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'high precision' but does not explain error handling, edge cases (e.g., division by zero), or whether operations are destructive. Significant gaps exist.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly sparse. It lacks structure and front-loads only a list of operations. While not verbose, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. A tool with 4 parameters and multiple operations requires details on return format, error handling, precision behavior, and operation-specific nuances. The description fails to cover these essential aspects.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'values' has a description). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it lists operations but does not explain the 'format', 'precision', or 'operation' enum values. The agent would need to infer semantics from names alone.

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 lists specific arithmetic operations (add, subtract, etc.), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate' or 'calculus', which may overlap. A more explicit distinction would improve clarity.

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 lacks context on prerequisites, suitability, or exclusions. The phrase 'with explicit operands' is too vague to guide tool selection.

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