Gst Split

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the conditional output behavior (CGST+SGST vs IGST), which is the key trait, but says nothing about rounding/precision, validation of the rate against legal slabs, or whether the tool is a pure side-effect-free computation.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the two output branches. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so the description's main job is to explain the intra-state/inter-state branching, which it does. It is nearly complete, though a note on rounding or invalid-rate handling would close the remaining gap for a tax calculation 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 100%, so all three parameters (amount in INR, intra_state semantics, legal rate slabs) are already fully documented. The description adds no syntax, unit, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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 (Split) and resource (GST) plus the two possible output shapes, so an agent immediately knows it decomposes a tax rate into components. It does not, however, contrast itself with sibling tools like gst_from_inclusive or gst_reverse_charge, which also perform GST math.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though siblings such as gst_from_inclusive (tax-inclusive amounts) and gst_reverse_charge are the obvious competing choices. The only selection cue is the positional 'intra_state' concept, which is left for the agent to infer.

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