add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (operation name and result, or error message on exception) and the logging behavior. This is helpful transparency for a tool that otherwise has no side effects.

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 docstring is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Logs sections. Every section adds useful information, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Minor redundancy exists with the operation name and the Args section, but it does not detract.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple arithmetic operation: it covers inputs, return behavior, error handling, and logging. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. The only missing element is explicit guidance about when not to use this tool, which is minor here.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the `data` parameter is an object containing two numbers `a` and `b` to be added, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Perform addition of two numbers provided in the data object.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like subtract, multiply, and divide. The operation and expected input shape are 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 use when addition is needed, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. For a simple arithmetic tool, the intended usage is fairly obvious, but no guidance about edge cases or alternative selection is given.

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