add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not what is returned, nor whether the operation is pure, nor how numeric precision or overflow is handled. It confirms the tool is arithmetic rather than side-effecting only by implication.

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 three-word sentence that is fully front-loaded with the operation. There is no filler and nothing that could be removed without losing information.

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 pure arithmetic function the burden is low, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation the description never states that the result is a number. It is barely adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so both parameters a and b are undocumented anywhere. The phrase "two numbers" loosely maps to the two operands but adds no meaning about their roles, order, or accepted ranges.

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 names a specific verb ("Add") and its operands ("two numbers"), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not need to distinguish itself from the lone sibling echo, which is unrelated, so there is no differentiation gap to fill.

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 this tool, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives such as echo. For a trivial arithmetic tool the implied usage is obvious, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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