sqrt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ValueError for negative inputs, logging side effects, and the success/error response structure, going well beyond the tool's obvious operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is organized into clear Args/Returns/Raises/Notes sections. It is slightly boilerplate-heavy in the Notes section, but every part is relevant and easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter calculator operation with an output schema, the description covers the operation, input shape, return dictionary, error behavior, and logging. Nothing essential to selecting and invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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 clarifies that `data` is a SingleNumberOperation wrapper containing the input number `a`, but this largely mirrors the schema and adds little extra semantic detail beyond the negative-input constraint mentioned in Raises.

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 square root of a given number.' This clearly distinguishes sqrt from the sibling arithmetic operations and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 intended use is implied by the description and the Raises clause implies valid input must be non-negative, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like power or square. The description gives clear context but not explicit when/when-not routing.

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