Jackpot Calculator

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is light. The description adds the useful qualifier that expected return is 'before-tax' and conditional/optional, but says nothing about return format (probability vs. percentage) or how coverage is expressed.

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 compact sentence with the primary output (jackpot coverage) front-loaded ahead of the secondary one. Slightly dense phrasing, but no wasted clauses.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description stops short of describing what the numeric results look like (probabilities, expected value, coverage units) or the relationship between ticket counts and likelihood. It is adequate to invoke the tool but not to interpret its results.

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 67%, with the 'tickets' and 'jackpotCash' semantics already elaborated in the schema itself ('different combinations in the SAME drawing', 'required to compute expected ticket return'). The description echoes those concepts but adds no syntax or format detail beyond them, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Calculate') and two concrete outputs: jackpot coverage for distinct combinations in one drawing, and optional before-tax expected ticket return. This differentiates it in spirit from payout/share siblings, though it never names an alternative tool. Clear purpose, but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied — the mention of 'distinct combinations in one drawing' and an 'optional' expected-return calculation hints at when each mode applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to calculate_lottery_payout or calculate_pool_share. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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 the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the unit contract ('Input dollars; result integer cents') and the fact that rules are 'bundled 2026' rules, telling the agent the tax model is a fixed vintage rather than live data.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant clause (what it computes) is front-loaded ahead of the unit and rule-vintage details. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does cover units and tax-rule vintage, which helps. It does not clarify whether the returned value is the net payout, the tax amount, or a breakdown including state and local withholding, and it omits the modeling limitations (only NYC/Yonkers localities, no cross-state claims) that a caller would want before trusting the result.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the critical dollars-in/cents-out convention for the 'prize' parameter and the result. But it says nothing about 'game', 'status', 'locality' or 'otherIncome', so the remaining documented gap is not compensated. Baseline 3 for mid coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: estimate taxes and withholding on a known lottery cash prize. This cleanly separates it from calculate_lottery_odds, calculate_pool_share and compare_lump_sum_annuity, though those siblings are never named explicitly. An agent can identify the tool's domain without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'on a known lottery cash prize' implies the precondition that the prize amount is already determined, which hints at sequencing after a prize is known. However, it never states when not to use it or points to a sibling for related questions (odds, pool sharing, annuity comparison). Usage is only implied.

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 a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds a key modeling assumption (every member is treated as having the same tax profile) and the word 'estimate' signals approximation, but it says nothing about rate limits, precision, or what the 'custom' game mode changes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the per-member scope front-loaded and the shared-tax-profile caveat immediately after. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned figures (cash prize, taxes, withholding) and flagging the central simplifying assumption. It is nearly sufficient for a 7-parameter calculator, though the equal-split-only constraint and sibling routing are left implicit.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-relevant content restates the members assumption that the schema itself already states, adding no new syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g., locality requiring NY).

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?

States a specific verb (estimate) and a precise resource: one equal member's cash prize, taxes, and withholding. The per-member framing separates it from the single-payout sibling calculate_lottery_payout, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives calculate_lottery_payout or compare_lump_sum_annuity. The agent must infer from the word 'equal member' that this tool is only for multi-owner pools and not for single winners.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the computation is after-tax, assumes 30 growing payments, and returns present value and break-even rate. It does not disclose tax-jurisdiction assumptions or result format, so it is modest value on top of annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the comparison, the tax basis, the payment structure, and the outputs with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the core action leads the sentence.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned figures (present value, break-even rate). However, it omits usage context, the tax-state modeling behavior, and any note on the many optional inputs, leaving gaps for a fairly complex financial tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents jackpot, cashValue, stateCode, and others well. The description names no parameters and adds no syntax, units, or constraint meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and the two resources being compared (published cash option vs. 30 growing annuity payments after taxes), plus the resulting metrics. An agent can tell this is the cash-vs-annuity decision tool, distinct from the odds/payout/pool-share siblings, though the description never names a sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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 describes what the tool computes but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. Nothing tells the agent to reach for this over calculate_lottery_payout, nor under what conditions it should be chosen.

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