divide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the basic mathematical operation and return value, but doesn't mention edge cases like division by zero, floating-point precision, or error handling. It provides the minimum viable behavioral information.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, labeled parameter explanations, and return value specification. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 simplicity (basic arithmetic), 2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the operation, parameters, and return value. The main gap is lack of edge case handling information, but for a simple division tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters: 'a' as the numerator and 'b' as the denominator. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema types, making the parameter purposes unambiguous.

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 clearly states the specific mathematical operation ('divide the first number by the second') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, multiply, and subtract by specifying division rather than other arithmetic operations.

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 usage context through the mathematical terminology (numerator/denominator) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like multiply or add. However, the mathematical operation itself provides clear inherent context for when division is appropriate.

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