calc_tip

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

Rich annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as whether 'total' is per-person when split is supplied, whether the result is rounded, or how defaults are applied. That leaves the key behavioral question (what 'split' does to the output) unanswered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It's efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of the missing semantics above, so it is not maximally earning its place.

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 three-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description should clarify how optional tip_percent and split affect the returned values. It never addresses either, leaving the agent guessing about the return structure and per-person behavior.

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 carry the burden, but only 'bill' and 'tip_percent' are indirectly implied by 'tip amount and total for a bill'. The 'split' parameter is never mentioned, nor are default values for the optional tip_percent and split.

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 states a specific verb and resource: computing both a tip amount and the resulting total for a bill. It's unambiguous, but it does nothing to differentiate from the many sibling arithmetic/utility calculators (calc_mortgage, calc_bmi, percentage_calc).

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to pick (e.g., percentage_calc or a general statistics tool). The agent has to infer usage entirely from the name.

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