multiply

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the basic behavior of multiplying two numbers, but does not disclose potential behavior regarding overflow, negative numbers, or return type. However, for a simple arithmetic operation, this is minimally adequate.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any superfluous words. It is perfectly concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the existence of an output schema (likely describing the returned number), and the straightforward nature of multiplication, the description is nearly complete. It could mention edge cases (e.g., division by zero not applicable here) but is otherwise sufficient.

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% (no descriptions for 'a' and 'b'), and the description only says 'two numbers'. This adds little beyond the schema, but the parameter names and context make the purpose of a and b obvious. For such a simple tool, this is sufficient.

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 'Multiply two numbers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling arithmetic tools like add, divide, etc., by the verb 'multiply' and the focus on two operands.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add' or 'power'. There is no explicit mention of context or restrictions, leaving it to the agent to infer from the name.

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