percentage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the operation is exact and accepts rationals, which is important for a percentage calculator, but it does not mention output format, error behavior, or constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (exact rational support) efficiently.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks parameter format examples and usage context, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 defines PART and TOTAL as components of a ratio, giving them semantic roles beyond their bare string types. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not specify the expected string format (e.g., '3/4' vs '0.75'), leaving invocation details ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool computes an exact share and percentage for a part/total ratio, which distinguishes it from related math tools like percentiles or calc_stats. It lacks an explicit verb but is unambiguous in its mathematical intent.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calc_exact or evaluate_expression. The only implied usage is for exact rational arithmetic, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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