subtract

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 dict structure, the success/error behavior, and the exact log format, which is useful and goes beyond a bare statement of 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 description is tightly structured into Args, Returns, and Logs sections, with every sentence contributing meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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?

For a simple binary numeric operation, the description provides enough context: input shape, expected return format, error behavior, and logging side effect. It is slightly incomplete in not explicitly defining the subtraction order, but the parameter names and log format imply a - b.

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 only says the data object contains 'two numbers, a and b' and does not clarify operand order, numerical edge cases, or any constraints beyond what the schema already names.

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 'Perform subtraction of two numbers provided in the `data` object', which is a clear verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling arithmetic tools, but the operation and result key ('subtract') make the purpose 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?

There is no guidance about when to choose subtract over the many sibling arithmetic operations, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the operation without situating it among alternatives.

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