tip_calculator

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic calculation. No annotations are present to fill this gap. Important details like rounding behavior, handling of decimal inputs, or limits on bill amount or split count are omitted.

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 concise with a single sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. While it could be more structured (e.g., using headings), it effectively communicates the core purpose.

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 calculator with 3 parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, it does not explain edge cases, negative inputs, or the format of the output. Given the complexity, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 the parameters beyond the schema's raw type definitions. It explains 'bill' as total bill amount, 'percent' as tip percentage with default, and 'split' as number of people. However, it lacks details like currency unit, precision, or validation, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 calculates tip amount and splits the bill. It uses specific verb 'Calculate' and resources 'tip amount' and 'split bill'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like discount_calculator or other financial calculators, but the uniqueness is evident from the name.

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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does.

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