Deployable MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it describes the basic operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens with non-numeric inputs), precision/rounding behavior, or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Arg and Return sections. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core operation first.

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, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the operation and parameters clearly. However, it could benefit from mentioning the tool's mathematical nature relative to siblings for better contextual understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters ('a: Number to subtract from' and 'b: Number to subtract'). It adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the role and order of parameters in the subtraction operation.

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 action ('Subtract the second number from the first') and distinguishes it from sibling tools (add, divide, multiply) by specifying the mathematical operation. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining what subtraction means in this context.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to subtract numbers) but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like 'add' or 'divide'. There's no guidance about edge cases or prerequisites, though the mathematical context makes the usage fairly self-evident.

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