calculate_discount_effective

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses returns (final price and effective single-discount equivalent) but does not mention any behavioral aspects like constraints (e.g., number of discounts), side effects, or error handling. For a calculation tool, this is minimally acceptable.

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 three sentences, front-loading purpose and usage with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, and inputs adequately. It lacks edge cases or advanced usage notes, but for a straightforward calculator, this is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing inputs generally ('original price, discount % list'), which is less precise than the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 computes effective discount from stacked promotions, with explicit use cases (promo design, shopping comparisons). It references list_bundles for related calculators but does not explicitly differentiate from other discount calculators in the same server, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 specifies when to use (promo design, shopping comparisons) and directs to list_bundles for alternative 'finance-universal' calculators. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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