Subtract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but for a pure numerical function there is little to disclose. It does not state that the operation is side-effect free or how non-numeric input is handled, yet the schema constrains inputs to numbers and an output schema documents the return, so nothing is misleading.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the critical detail (operand order) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present and both parameters fully documented in the schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It is minimal but complete for a two-argument arithmetic primitive.

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%, with `a` documented as the minuend and `b` as the subtrahend, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrasing ('second from the first') only restates the operand ordering already given by the schema, adding no new semantics.

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 (subtract) and precisely identifies the operand order ('the second number from the first'), removing any ambiguity about which argument is subtracted from which. It is fully unambiguous on its own, though it does nothing to differentiate itself from the arithmetic siblings beyond naming the 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as `add` or `divide`, and no conditions or exclusions. For a pure arithmetic primitive the purpose does imply its usage, which lands it at the 'implied usage' level rather than explicit guidance.

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