multiply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the multiplication action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., overflow), input constraints (e.g., integer vs. decimal), or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or parameter details, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent in selecting and invoking the tool correctly, especially compared to more complex siblings.

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 description implies two parameters ('two numbers') but adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides, such as parameter roles or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details, but since there are only two straightforward parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for minimal adequacy.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Multiply two numbers together,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' or 'divide' by specifying multiplication, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation in the text.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'power' or 'factorial.' It lacks context about use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

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