tip_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully exposes defaults (tipPercent 15, people 1), but it does not state the calculation formula, rounding behavior, or whether the result is the tip amount, total, or per-person share.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences carry the purpose, parameter list, and defaults with no repetition or filler. Every word contributes to correct invocation.

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 calculator the input list and defaults are sufficient to make a call, but the lack of an output schema means the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., per-person total including tip). Edge cases like people=0 or non-numeric inputs are not addressed.

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 compensates by naming all three parameters and adding default values not present in the schema. It does not spell out units or validation, but the roles of billAmount, tipPercent, and people are clear from context.

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 begins with a specific verb and object—'Calculate tip and split bill'—and the tool name makes its financial scope obvious. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling converter/calculator tools such as percentage_calculator or length_converter.

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 intended usage context is clear: use it when computing a tip and dividing a bill, and it accepts billAmount with optional tipPercent and people. There is no explicit exclusion or mention of alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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