product

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

The description discloses that the range is inclusive and x is integer, but it omits critical behavioral details such as how angle_mode affects trigonometric expressions and what the output looks like. With no annotations, these missing traits leave significant ambiguity.

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 three concise sentences: definition, params, and example. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, angle_mode semantics and allowed expression syntax are left unaddressed, leaving notable gaps. The description is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 explains expression is in x and start/end are integer bounds via the example, but angle_mode is completely unexplained despite having a default and no schema description. With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more for this parameter.

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 discrete product of f(x) for integer x from start to end inclusive. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like 'summation' and other math tools.

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 'When:' phrasing implies usage for product calculations, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like summation or any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than directly stated.

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