multiply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Multiply two numbers together' is a pure computation with no side effects implied, which is reasonably transparent. However, it doesn't state return type, precision handling, or whether very large numbers have special behavior. The simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable but not thorough.

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 4-word sentence that is exceptionally economical. Every word earns its place with no fluff, no redundancy, and no wasted structure. For a tool of this simplicity, this is ideal conciseness.

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?

This is a trivially simple tool: 2 parameters, both required, both documented at 100%, no output schema, no nested objects, no annotations. Given this minimal complexity, the single-sentence description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of a defined return format, but for a pure arithmetic operation this is easily inferred.

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%, meaning both parameters (a and b) are already fully described as 'The first number' and 'The second number'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it just restates that two numbers are multiplied. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description confirms the relationship between the two parameters.

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 'Multiply two numbers together' clearly states the verb (multiply), resource (two numbers), and outcome. It's distinct from its sibling 'add' which would be used for addition. A minor gap is that it doesn't specify any return behavior or edge cases, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 (multiplying two numbers), and the sibling 'add' provides some implicit differentiation for arithmetic operations. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over add, no mention of number type constraints (integers vs floats), overflow considerations, or ordering implications.

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