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' returns text, not structured error). Tool names lack action verbs ('add' and 'calculate' are weak; 'perform_addition' and 'perform_calculation' would be clearer). No parameter descriptions beyond type hints. 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 chars. Example for 'add': 'Adds two numbers and returns the sum. Use this for simple two-operand addition. Returns a numeric result as text.'
• Add descriptions to all parameters. Example: 'a: First number to add (any real number)', 'b: Second number to add (any real number)', 'operation: Arithmetic operation to perform (add, subtract, multiply, or divide)'.
• Document output schema. Specify that both tools return {content: [{type: 'text', text: string}]} and clarify that 'text' contains the numeric result or error message.
• Rename tools to be more specific: 'add' → 'perform_addition', 'calculate' → 'perform_arithmetic_operation'. This clarifies intent and reduces LLM confusion.
• Improve error handling for divide-by-zero: return structured error like {content: [{type: 'text', text: 'Error: division by zero. Divisor (b) must be non-zero.'}]} with clear constraint violation.