wolfram_query

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. While it mentions what the tool does (query Wolfram Alpha), it lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is functional but insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating domain examples from the general instruction.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses important contextual details like response format, error conditions, rate limits, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a computational query tool with no structured behavioral data, this description leaves significant gaps.

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 the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on query formatting or examples). Given the high schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: querying Wolfram Alpha for computational questions. It specifies the domain (math, science, calculations, conversions, real-time data) and provides a general use case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wolfram_calculate' or 'wolfram_convert', which appear to be more specialized versions.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use for any computational question', which suggests it's a general-purpose tool for Wolfram Alpha queries. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus the more specialized sibling tools (wolfram_calculate, wolfram_convert), nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.

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