ratio_calc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions a cost, but does not explain what the tool calculates, whether it has side effects, what its return format is, or any error conditions. This is far below the minimum needed.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The cost statement is the only concrete detail, but the rest is a tautology. A concise description should still convey purpose and usage.

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?

Given the tool's apparent nature as a calculator, the complete absence of parameter details, output expectations, and differentiation from many sibling calculator tools makes this description entirely insufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has a single generic 'params' object with no specific fields, and the description adds no parameter semantics. Even though schema coverage is 100%, the schema itself is empty, and the description does not compensate by explaining what keys or values to pass.

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 merely rephrases the tool name as 'ratio calc' and labels it 'Other Utilities tool,' with no verb or resource. It fails to state what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, or what kind of result it produces, and it does not distinguish it from the many sibling calculator tools.

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 alternatives. The only additional information is the cost, which does not help an agent decide when to invoke it. No context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided.

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