tangent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully notes that input is in degrees, that tangent is undefined at 90°, 270°, etc., and that those cases return very large values rather than errors. It also discloses that the operation logs the operation and result, which is useful behavioral context.

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 concise, clearly labeled with Args/Returns/Notes, and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every line adds useful information, and there is no redundant 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 single-parameter math utility with an output schema available, the description covers the critical operational details: degree input, undefined-angle behavior, error-return shape, and logging. No essential detail for correctly invoking the tool 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 for parameter meaning. It identifies the single parameter as an AngleOperation object containing the angle in degrees, which clarifies the input semantics beyond the raw schema. The schema already provides the property name and a brief angle description, but the description reinforces the degree unit.

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 tangent of an angle in degrees.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sine and cosine through both the tool name and the explicit angle-unit statement.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a tangent calculation is needed—but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives such as sine or cosine. The notes about degrees and undefined angles provide useful context, but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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