multiply

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states a pure computation: take two numbers, multiply, and return a result, implying no side effects. Yet it does not address edge cases, numeric precision, type coercion, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity despite the operation's simplicity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant modifiers. Every word contributes to understanding the operation and its output.

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 arithmetic tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral contract. Although there is no output schema, 'return the result' is unambiguous in the multiplication context, and no hidden prerequisites or side effects need to be disclosed.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'a' ('The first number.') and 'b' ('The second number.'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the resource ('two numbers') and the output ('return the result'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is inherently distinct from the add, subtract, and divide siblings, though it does not explicitly name them or differentiate itself beyond the operation 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 intended use is implied by the description: if an agent needs to multiply two numbers, this tool is the obvious choice. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of situations where a different arithmetic tool would be preferable.

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