floor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that rounding always goes down (including negative values), that results are returned as a dictionary with either a result or an error message, and that the operation logs the call. This is solid but does not detail error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and uses compact Args/Returns/Notes sections. Minor redundancy exists between 'Round a number down' and 'Always rounds down,' but the second clause earns its place through clarifying negative examples.

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 single-parameter pure math operation this is complete: it defines the input wrapper, the operation, the return shape, edge-case behavior, and logging. The only missing detail is when an error message is produced, but the output schema presumably covers the exact return keys.

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 explain the parameter. It does explain that data is a SingleNumberOperation object containing the input number a, which compensates for the schema's opaque top-level reference. It could add the exact type constraint, but 'input number' plus schema is sufficient.

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: 'Round a number down to the nearest integer.' The explicit examples, including the negative case -3.1 -> -4, distinguish this from a rounding/truncation or ceiling operation, which is the direct sibling.

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 operation's use is implied clearly by the verb and examples, but the description never says when to choose floor over the sibling ceiling (or vice versa). There is no explicit exclusion or conditional guidance.

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