percentage

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

The description defines the operation as 'what percent part is of whole', which implies the formula (part/whole)*100. However, it does not disclose edge cases such as if whole is zero, whether the result is rounded, or the exact format of the return value (e.g., 50 vs 0.5). With no annotations, this leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, short sentence that immediately states the purpose. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter arithmetic tool, the description is adequate. It explains the core operation, and since an output schema exists, the return value does not need to be described in the text. It lacks edge-case notes but these are not critical for a basic percentage calculator.

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 provides parameter names (part, whole) with no descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that 'part' is the numerator and 'whole' is the denominator, but it does not mention constraints (e.g., whole cannot be zero) or types beyond the schema's number type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('what percent'), clearly stating the calculation it performs. It distinguishes itself from sibling arithmetic tools by focusing on the percentage relationship between part and whole.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like divide or multiply. While the description implies percentage computation, it does not explicitly state that this is for percentage context or when to prefer it over manual arithmetic.

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