Divide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the core computation but does not mention division-by-zero handling or return behavior; however, the schema documents the non-zero constraint on b, and the operation is a simple deterministic calculation. The description is minimally adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the operation immediately and is appropriately sized for a simple arithmetic tool.

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 two-parameter, deterministic arithmetic tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It does not need to explain return values or permissions, and the non-zero divisor constraint is captured in the schema.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema (a = dividend, b = divisor, non-zero). The description reinforces the order (first/second) but adds little beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 arithmetic verb (divide) and the operands (first number by second), which is exactly what the tool does. It is unambiguous and inherently distinguishes itself from siblings such as add, subtract, and multiply.

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 guidance on when to use division versus the sibling arithmetic tools, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The operation is simple enough that an agent can infer usage, but the description itself provides no explicit usage context.

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