aaddyy_math_solver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface two genuine traits: dual image/text input and a cost of ~2 credits. It stops short of anything else an agent would want — whether image input expects a URL or base64, whether there are size limits, whether the call is synchronous, or how failures are reported.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the credit cost appended as a useful parenthetical. Minor waste in the trailing 'and more', but nothing structurally wrong.

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?

A nine-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation gets only a two-sentence description covering capability and cost. The agent is left guessing how to construct image input and what the format/language/visualization switches actually do, which is a real gap for a tool this configurable.

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?

Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and only partially does. 'Image or text input' hints at inputType and the problemText/problemImage pair, and 'step-by-step explanations' hints at explanationLevel/showWorkSteps, but language, solutionFormat, problemCategory, and includeVisualization are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Solve mathematical problems') and enumerates the supported domains, which tells an agent exactly what class of task this handles. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling aaddyy_physics_solver, so the math-vs-physics boundary is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The domain list ('arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus') weakly implies scope, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over aaddyy_physics_solver or a general-purpose model call.

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