multiply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (multiplication) without any behavioral context about error handling, numerical precision, overflow behavior, or return format. For a mathematical operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place completely.

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 mathematical operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, and the description doesn't address numerical constraints, error cases, or result format, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (parameters 'a' and 'b' have no descriptions in schema), the description compensates by clearly indicating these are '两个数字' (two numbers). While it doesn't specify parameter order or naming, it establishes the essential semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('执行乘法运算' - perform multiplication) and resource ('两个数字' - two numbers), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' or 'divide' by specifying multiplication, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar mathematical operations.

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. With many sibling mathematical tools (add, divide, power, etc.), there's no indication of when multiplication is appropriate versus other operations or when to choose this over similar tools like 'product' which might handle multiple numbers.

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