proportion_solve

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

The read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds that exactly three values are expected. However, it does not disclose the return value, error behavior for invalid proportions, or handling of omitted/extra inputs.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the operation and the invocation condition.

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 math utility with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to sufficient. Still, with no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what is returned or how invalid inputs are handled, leaving a clear but modest gap.

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%, but the schema descriptions are only 'Value a' through 'Value d.' The description adds meaningful semantics by mapping the parameters to the equation a/b = c/d and indicating that any three can be supplied.

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 gives a specific verb and mathematical object: solve the proportion a/b = c/d. This clearly distinguishes it from nearby utilities such as ratio_simplify or percentage_calc without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'given any 3 values' implies how to invoke it, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling math tools or what to do with all four/fewer than three values. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully guided.

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