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. The description only states what the tool does (multiplication) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, mathematical precision, or what happens with large numbers. For a mathematical operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise: 'Multiply two numbers together' - a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for this simple mathematical operation. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a simple mathematical tool with an output schema (which presumably describes the result), the description is reasonably complete for the core functionality. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks behavioral context that would be helpful for an agent. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'two numbers' which maps to the two parameters, but doesn't add meaning beyond what's obvious from the parameter names 'a' and 'b'. It doesn't explain that these are integers (from schema), provide examples, or discuss edge cases. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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: 'Multiply two numbers together' - a specific verb ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' by specifying multiplication rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the integer type restriction from the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'add' for different mathematical operations, nor does it provide context about when multiplication is appropriate versus other operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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