Tipping Rules

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the return content ('amounts plus canonical country and calculator URLs') and the calculation approach ('percent or round-up'). This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide, without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the return-value note earns its place by describing what the agent will receive.

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, read-only calculation tool with 100% schema coverage and clear sibling distinctions, the description is complete. It states what it calculates, which parameters matter (bill, country), the behavioral approach, and what it returns.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already gives; it reinforces the country context but does not explain the bill format or service categories, which are already described in the 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 states a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('suggested tip and total for a bill'), and includes the context of 'Tipping Rules country norms'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools get_tipping_rules and search_countries, which are for retrieving rules and looking up countries rather than computing a tip.

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 makes it clear the tool is for calculating a tip and total from a bill, and references country-specific norms. It does not explicitly state 'use search_countries to find a country' or 'use get_tipping_rules for detailed rules', but the intent and context are clear enough for an agent to select this tool over its siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the response contents, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema to convey return shape.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then uses a colon to list the returned fields. Every element earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the input is documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety. With no output schema, listing the returned fields is a meaningful and sufficient substitute.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the country parameter is fully documented with format guidance and an example. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('tipping guidance for a country'), and enumerates the exact content returned: status, summary, key service recommendations, last reviewed date, and canonical country URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_tip and search_countries.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you need concise tipping guidance for a country. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and listed output make its role obvious relative to the siblings.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the return payload includes matching countries with 'status' and 'canonical country page URLs.' The meaning of 'status' is left undefined, which is a minor gap, but overall the behavioral context is enhanced.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the verb 'Search' and immediately specifying the resource and behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately discloses the return content (matching countries, status, URLs). It could be more complete by explaining what 'status' means or what happens when no matches are found, but for a simple search tool this is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage; the 'query' parameter's description ('Country name, alias, or region fragment') fully documents the input. The tool description's 'by name or region' is a partial, less precise paraphrase and adds no new semantic information beyond the 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 states a specific action on a specific resource: 'Search Tipping Rules destinations by name or region.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools calculate_tip and get_tipping_rules, which are for arithmetic and rule retrieval respectively. The title 'Search destinations' reinforces the purpose.

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 makes clear this tool is for finding destinations/countries, which is distinct from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus get_tipping_rules (e.g., 'search for a country first, then retrieve its rules'), relying on the reader to infer the workflow.

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