tool_get_tipping_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Curated snapshot' hints that the data is static rather than live, which is genuinely useful, but nothing is said about freshness, country coverage, or what happens for unsupported ISO codes.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the argument. No filler sentences. The 'Args:' block is mildly boilerplate but harmless.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a category level and how to form the input. Missing country coverage and data-currency notes keep it at merely adequate.

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 0%, so the one parameter is undocumented structurally. The description compensates by specifying the expected format ('ISO 2-letter code') and giving three concrete examples, which is enough to call it correctly, but it does not cover error behavior for invalid codes.

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?

Names a specific resource (tipping customs and expected amounts) and enumerates the covered categories (restaurants, taxis, hotels, bars). The verb 'get' is generic and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like tool_get_cultural_etiquette, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must guess whether tipping guidance overlaps with tool_get_cultural_etiquette, tool_get_country_facts, or tool_get_cost_of_living.

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