calculate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool evaluates expressions and returns results, and lists supported operators, but does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid expressions, division by zero) or confirm it is non-destructive. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 (three sentences plus an Args line) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, supported operators, usage guidance, and parameter explanation.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and supported operators. It could mention error cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name and type (string). The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining 'A numeric expression' and giving a concrete example '2 * (3 + 4) / 7'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 precisely what the tool does: 'Evaluate a numeric arithmetic expression and return the result.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the supported operators distinguish it from sibling tools like search_knowledge_base and text_stats.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this for any arithmetic instead of computing it yourself — language models are unreliable at multi-digit math.' This clearly tells the agent when to use the tool and implies not to use it for non-arithmetic operations.

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