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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations: it specifies the output shape and guarantees that the parts sum exactly to the original total. It also names the largest-remainder method, which implies deterministic handling of rounding remainders.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that states the operation, algorithm, and output contract without wasted words. The most important scoping information appears first, and the return-value guarantee is included compactly.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core input semantics, the algorithm, and the return shape, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly in the intended use case. Minor omissions such as handling of zero/negative weights or the precise decimal formatting of parts are not severe given the concise contract.

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 explains the roles of total and weights by the phrase 'decimal money total by weights,' and the output contract implies the allocation semantics. However, the optional decimals parameter is not described beyond its schema default, and with only 33% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific operation ('Split a decimal money total by weights') and the algorithm ('largest remainder'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. The output contract ('{ parts: string[] } summing exactly to total') further distinguishes it from unrelated siblings such as forgekit_generate_qr and forgekit_validate_json.

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 the intended use case clear: proportional allocation of a monetary amount into parts by weights. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but none of the sibling tools performs a similar allocation, so the lack of named alternatives is not a significant gap.

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