absolute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is non-negative, that a dict with result or error is returned, and that the operation and result are logged. It does not discuss edge cases like NaN or infinity, but for a simple math function this is acceptable 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 starts with the core purpose and then uses Args, Returns, and Notes sections that are compact and scannable. There is only mild redundancy between the first sentence and the first note, but no unnecessary filler.

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 low complexity of the operation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the input wrapper, the actual numeric parameter, the return shape, and the logging behavior. It is nearly complete, though it omits explicit error-condition details such as invalid number handling.

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 the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that `data` is a SingleNumberOperation object containing the input number `a`. This is sufficient to know how to invoke the tool correctly, even though no example is provided.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the absolute value of a given number.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling arithmetic/math tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use this when you need the non-negative magnitude of a number. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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