multiply

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

With no annotations provided, the description must take on the burden of disclosing behavior. The phrase 'Multiply two numbers' accurately describes the core behavior, but it does not mention return type, error handling, or edge cases like overflow or non-numeric inputs. For a trivial math operation, this is minimally acceptable.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and states the exact scope, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 extreme simplicity of the operation and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether the result is a number, but the output schema presumably covers that. No prerequisites or hidden behaviors exist for such a basic calculator function.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that both a and b are numbers, but it does not differentiate them—though for multiplication, operands are commutative and the positional order is irrelevant. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type declarations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Multiply') and resource ('two numbers'), which clearly conveys the operation and distinguishes it from sibling arithmetic tools like add, subtract, and divide. It is not a tautology because it adds the operand details beyond the tool name.

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 the tool should be used whenever multiplication of two numeric values is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention any exclusions, such as integer-only constraints or order sensitivity.

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