summation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the inclusive integer range and the presence of an angle_mode parameter, but does not describe output format, error handling, or how angle_mode affects the expression. This is only partial 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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the 'When' condition. Each sentence adds value: the operation, the parameter list, and an example, with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core behavior, parameter list, and an example. The angle_mode parameter is left without explanation, and edge cases like start>end are not mentioned, but the description is still sufficient for tool selection and basic 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies all four parameters: expression in x, start, end, and angle_mode, and provides a concrete example. However, angle_mode's semantics are not explained beyond its name and default, and start/end are only clarified as inclusive via the description.

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 a discrete sum Σ f(x) for integer x from start to end inclusive. This specific verb+resource formula distinguishes it from sibling tools like integrate or product, and the 'When' prefix makes the operation explicit.

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:' clause explicitly defines when to use the tool: discrete summation over an integer range. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the phrase 'discrete sum' implicitly contrasts with continuous integration and product operations among siblings, providing adequate usage context.

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