complex_calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about return format (e.g., what 'polar' returns, whether magnitude returns a scalar while add returns a pair), error behavior for divide-by-zero, or which fields are ignored for unary operations. 'Complex number arithmetic' conveys the domain but not the behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation list is compact. It is efficient, though slightly redundant with the schema enum.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain return shapes (particularly for the heterogeneous operations like polar vs conjugate vs divide). For a 5-parameter tool spanning scalar- and pair-returning operations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about results.

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 100%, including a per-property description and the same operation enum, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's operation list is redundant with the schema's operation field and adds no new parameter semantics (e.g., it never clarifies that imag2/real2 are optional and only used for binary ops).

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 states a specific resource (complex numbers) and enumerates the exact operations performed, so an agent knows precisely what the tool computes. It does not distinguish itself from the many other math/calculator siblings (matrix_operate, polynomial_ops, gcd_lcm_calc), but the verb+resource pairing is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or on preconditions (e.g., that imag2 is only meaningful for binary operations, or that magnitude/conjugate operate on a single number). The agent must infer usage entirely from the enumeration.

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