topai_math_fact_checker

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Stateless, read-only, idempotent' clause largely repeats structured data. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: deterministic decimal/IEEE arithmetic and an 'explicit step-by-step audit trail' return characteristic. It does not cover failure modes or limits.

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?

Three tightly-scoped sentences with the purpose and audit-trail behavior front-loaded, followed by usage routing. Minor waste in restating the annotation-covered 'Stateless, read-only, idempotent' traits, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of hinting at returns, and it does so via the 'step-by-step audit trail' phrase. All three operations and the upstream dependency on the extractor are covered, leaving only error/edge behavior unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the operation enum and each field's role. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Executes deterministic IEEE/decimal financial arithmetic') and enumerates the three concrete operations (VAT, invoice reconciliation, business-day counts). It also clearly differentiates from the sibling topai_invoice_extractor, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('whenever an agent must compute or verify taxes, invoice totals, or date intervals') and explicit when-not ('Do not use for parsing raw unstructured invoice text'), including the alternative tool and the correct sequencing ('use topai_invoice_extractor first, then pass extracted numbers here').

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