percentage_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it mutates anything, how it handles a missing operation parameter, or any edge cases. The description simply lists inputs and operations, providing no behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 extremely short and could be considered under-specification rather than concise. It lacks any clear sentence structure, does not front-load the most critical information, and omits necessary context. While it does not waste words, it fails to earn its place by providing adequate 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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain default behaviors, return values, or error handling. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings and relationships. While it lists the parameters ('value', 'percent', 'operation') and repeats the enum values, it does not clarify how these parameters interact (e.g., what 'increase' does with 'value' and 'percent'). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 identifies the resource ('Percentage') and lists the operations ('of / increase / decrease / whatPercent') but provides no verb or complete statement of purpose. It reads more like a collection of keywords than a clear explanation of what the tool does, making it difficult for an agent to understand the tool's function at a glance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling calculators (e.g., tip_calculator, date_difference_calculator). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool is the appropriate choice. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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