calculate_gratuity

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses formula, tax-exempt limit (₹20,00,000), and service requirement. Adds behavioral context beyond a simple calculation, though it doesn't mention edge cases like partial years.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then details/formula. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value description is not required. Covers purpose, usage, formula, and constraints. Minor gap: no mention of behavior for tenure less than 5 years, but overall sufficient for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions), but the description mentions 'Last Salary' and 'Years' in the formula, mapping loosely to parameters last_monthly_salary and tenure_years. However, it does not explicitly define units or clarify that salary is monthly, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states 'Calculate gratuity under India's Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972', specifying the verb (calculate) and resource (gratuity) with legal context. Distinguishes from siblings like calculate_future_value or calculate_epf by focusing on gratuity specifically.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when a user asks about gratuity eligibility or payout at retirement/resignation' and adds condition 'Applies to employees with 5+ years of continuous service'. Provides clear when-to-use guidance without needing alternatives.

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