calculate_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states that fees are calculated, without revealing what output format to expect (e.g., total amount, breakdown), whether calculations are estimates, or any jurisdiction-specific logic. This is insufficient for a financial calculation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and core purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description must clarify what users will receive. It does not mention return format, edge cases, or that the result may be an estimate. This leaves significant gaps for a calculation tool operating across multiple states.

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%, and the schema descriptions provide meaningful context (e.g., 'Projected annual gross gaming revenue in USD' includes units; license_type includes examples). The tool description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's contribution.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('licensing fees') with a clear scope ('based on projected revenue for a specific state'). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_market_size by focusing on fees, not market size.

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 implies when to use the tool (when projected revenue and a state are known) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks direct comparisons to sibling tools, but the context of requiring projected revenue makes the intended use clear.

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