fibonacci_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a deterministic computation with an optional membership test, but it never states that it is side-effect free, whether both parameters can be combined, or what the result looks like on failure to find a Fibonacci match.

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 padding; the generation capability and the optional test are both conveyed compactly.

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 two-parameter math tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both behaviors adequately. The main remaining ambiguity is how the two parameters combine, which is a minor gap given the schema's clarity.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (n as count with 1-100 range and default 10, check as an optional test value). The description adds only the conceptual role of the check parameter, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (Fibonacci numbers) and two concrete capabilities: generating a sequence and testing membership. No sibling tool in the list overlaps with Fibonacci, so no differentiation is needed, but the dual behavior could be stated more crisply.

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?

'Optionally check if a number is Fibonacci' implies that the check parameter drives the second mode, but the description never states when to use one mode versus the other or how they interact when both parameters are supplied.

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