discount_calculator

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic functionality. It lacks information about edge cases (e.g., negative discounts, zero original price) or output format. With no annotations, more transparency is expected.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a bullet-like parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately provides parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could be more complete by including an example or noting the output format. It covers the core functionality well.

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 description adds meaning to all three parameters: original price, discount amount/percentage, and type (percent vs fixed). Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics.

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 final price after a discount (percentage or fixed amount).' It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('final price'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tip_calculator, percentage_calculator, etc.

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 explains the type parameter ('percent' or 'fixed') and implies usage for discount calculations, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling calculators, more explicit context would be helpful.

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