divide

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable precondition context: operands must be finite and the divisor must be non-zero. This goes beyond the annotations and alerts the agent to important input constraints, though it does not describe the exact error handling for violated preconditions.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core operation (a / b) and immediately states the critical constraints. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 and annotations covering safety and side effects, this description is complete. It includes the operation, operand roles, and the non-zero/finiteness preconditions. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by defining the relationship exactly: a is the dividend and b is the divisor via a / b. It also attaches the necessary constraints to both operands, making parameter usage unambiguous despite the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: divide a by b with the explicit formula a / b. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools add, subtract, and multiply, and the finite/non-zero constraints further pin down its intended operation.

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 clearly implies use when a quotient of two finite numbers is needed, and the sibling list makes the alternative arithmetic tools obvious. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of multiply/subtract/add', but the task context and formula provide sufficient guidance. The constraint that b must not be zero is a useful usage condition.

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