calculate_discount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a simple calculation, idempotency or non-destructive behavior should be mentioned. The description only covers functionality.

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 two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds return format and a navigation hint. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no annotations, the description should be more self-contained. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., negative discounts, very large numbers) and does not mention any error handling. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to document return values, but still leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds the concept of 'successive discount' but that is also implied by the schema's description of discount2_pct. No significant additional meaning.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'discounted price', and mentions 'optional successive discounts'. It provides the return structure. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculate_discount_effective, which could cause confusion.

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 only usage guidance is to 'see list_bundles for related finance-universal calculators'. This is a cross-reference but does not explain when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or prerequisites.

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