subtract

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 states the core operation but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as floating-point precision, handling of NaN/Infinity, whether the result is always a number, or any overflow behavior. Since there is no annotation context at all, a simple operation description leaves agents blind to potential edge cases.

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 clear sentence with no padding. The order of operands is specified precisely, and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter arithmetic tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient. The math operation is fully described, and whether the return value is the difference is implied by the output schema. However, without annotations, edge-case behavior (non-finite numbers, precision) is not covered, which lowers completeness slightly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The phrase 'second number from the first' maps to a and b, indicating that a is the minuend and b is the subtrahend, which adds some semantic value. However, it does not specify types beyond the schema's number type, nor does it clarify constraints or provide examples of order/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 'Subtract the second number from the first' clearly identifies the operation with a specific verb and resource, and unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like add, multiply, and divide. Even without context, an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever subtraction is needed, and the mathematical domain distinguishes it from sibling arithmetic operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., for vector/matrix operations). For a simple arithmetic tool in a math sibling group, the implied usage is adequate.

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