square

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the return dictionary, the key fields ('operation name' and 'result'), the logging format, and error behavior. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent a concrete picture of side effects and outputs.

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 well-structured with clear Args/Returns/Logs/Raises sections and the core purpose is front-loaded. Each section is concise, though the Raises and error-return statements are slightly redundant with the Returns section.

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 pure-math operation, the description covers input, output, logging, and error handling. An output schema exists, so the return type is already structured. It lacks comparative guidance against sibling tools, but is otherwise complete for calling this tool correctly.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It only restates that 'data' contains 'the number to be squared' and does not mention the actual field name 'a' or clarify the structure beyond what the schema already shows. This is minimal added value.

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: 'Calculate the square of a given number.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and is clearly distinct from siblings like sqrt, power, or multiply.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as power, multiply, or sqrt. The only usage signal is the purpose statement itself; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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