divide

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not mention division-by-zero behavior, error handling, precision, or result type, which are relevant for a division 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?

The description is a single clear sentence that immediately states the operation and operand order. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or unnecessary background.

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-number arithmetic tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operation. However, it omits critical context such as what happens when the divisor is zero, which is likely an error case the agent should know when invoking the tool.

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 input schema only provides numeric parameters a and b with no descriptions. The description adds positional semantics: 'the first number' corresponds to the dividend and 'the second number' to the divisor. This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage but does not explain constraints or edge cases.

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 a specific operation: divide one number by another. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, multiply, or power, and the 'first'/'second' phrasing makes the operand order 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 description gives no guidance on when to use division versus the alternative arithmetic tools. There are no use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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