continued_fraction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that output includes convergents, which is useful, but says nothing about how max_terms affects truncation of the expansion, edge cases (e.g. denominator zero), or the return structure. Significant gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and result. No wasted words, though it could carry more substance at little cost.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter conversion with fully documented schema and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions convergents (partial return-value disclosure) but leaves truncation behavior and edge cases unstated.

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%, so numerator, denominator, and max_terms are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general notion of a rational input and does not clarify max_terms behavior or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Convert) and resource (rational number) and names the output artifact (continued fraction representation with convergents). It is clear what the tool does, though it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many other math/transform siblings beyond the domain noun.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and domain.

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