allocate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the algorithm (largest-remainder method), the exact-sum guarantee, and gives a concrete example showing the output. It does not cover edge cases like all-zero ratios, but for a simple tool this is sufficient; notably it clearly indicates the splitting behavior.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines the behavior and method, the second provides an instant example and use cases. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core algorithm, exactness property, a concrete input-output pair, and explicit use cases. This is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 100%, meaning both amount and ratios already have descriptions. The description reinforces with an example and clarifies the interpretation, but does not add substantive new semantic detail beyond the schema. This fits the baseline 3 for high schema 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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Split an amount') and resource ('an amount by integer ratios'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling financial tools like get_balance or list_entries. The largest-remainder method and exact-sum property further clarify its unique function.

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 states use cases: 'commission splits, installments, and tax apportionment' and provides the alternative 'instead of doing division yourself.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance even without naming a specific sibling tool.

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