calculate_equation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Returns: {error},' which is vague and incomplete. The tool's behavior (e.g., mutability, side effects) is not disclosed, and the description does not clarify the success output structure despite an existing output schema.

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 a single sentence that captures the core purpose, followed by a brief note about related tools. It is concise and front-loads the primary action, with no wasted words.

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 equation-solving tool with a defined input schema and output schema (albeit not shown), the description adequately conveys the supported equation types and hints at error handling. Missing details like success output format are mitigated by the output schema, so it is mostly complete.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already conveys meaning. The description does not add any additional semantic detail, thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool solves 1st and 2nd degree equations, specifying the exact forms (ax+b=0 and ax²+bx+c=0). The verb 'Solve' and the specific equation types make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from the many sibling tools.

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 mentions 'See list_bundles for related "math" calculators,' which provides a hint for alternatives, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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