Two tools with basic schemas and minimal descriptions. Both tools have input schemas with proper types (number, string, enum), but descriptions are extremely short (10-40 chars), falling well below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM-optimized descriptions. No output schemas documented. Error handling is minimal (divide-by-zero check in 'calculate' only). Tool names lack action verbs ('add' and 'calculate' are weak; 'perform_addition' and 'perform_calculation' would be clearer). No parameter descriptions beyond type info. No composition guidance or chaining IDs. Schemas are visible and properly typed, preventing a lower score, but the overall quality is below median for production tools.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 characters. Example for 'add': 'Adds two numbers together and returns the numeric sum. Use this for basic arithmetic addition. Returns the result as a number.'
• Add descriptions to all parameters. Example: 'a: The first number to add (any real number). b: The second number to add (any real number).' For 'calculate', describe each enum value: 'operation: The arithmetic operation to perform. Valid values: add (sum), subtract (difference), multiply (product), divide (quotient; returns error if divisor is zero).'
• Document output schema explicitly. Example: 'Returns an object with a single field: result (number), the computed value. For divide operations, returns an error message if the divisor is zero.'
• Rename tools to follow verb_noun convention: 'add' → 'perform_addition' or 'compute_sum'; 'calculate' → 'perform_arithmetic' or 'compute_operation'.
• Add input validation and error guidance. For 'add', validate that inputs are finite numbers. For 'calculate', return actionable errors: 'Error: Cannot divide by zero. Ensure the second operand (b) is non-zero.' Include recovery hints if applicable.