calculate_surcharge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly states the tool calculates a fee but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency. It adds minimal context beyond the action.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity).

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?

Although an output schema exists (return type presumably documented), the description fails to explain the 'facility_id' parameter, which is present in the schema but not in the description. This omission makes the tool incomplete for users who need to specify facility-specific surcharges. The description's hint about brand-specific surcharging implies facility_id may be needed, but it is 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?

Description adds meaning for two of three parameters: amount_cents is explained with example ('12500 = $125.00'), and card_type is optional with example ('visa') and notes on brand-specific surcharging. However, it omits the 'facility_id' parameter entirely, leaving it undocumented. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate the surcharge (credit-card convenience fee) for a payment.' It specifies the verb (calculate) and resource (surcharge). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools, but none seem directly related, so it is largely clear.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The context 'for a payment' implies usage but lacks clarity.

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