calculate_percentage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes what is calculated, not any behavioral traits like read-only, error handling, or precision. For a calculator tool, this is a minor gap but still lacking.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a cross-reference to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place; 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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and points to related tools. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar percentage tools (e.g., calculate_percentage_change) and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations, leaving some context incomplete.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds a brief summary of the operations, but no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 calculates percentages with three operations (value of total, percentage change, what percent), matching the enum in the input schema. It references list_bundles for related calculators, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'calculate_percentage_change', which overlaps in operation 'change'.

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 advises to see list_bundles for related calculators, implying a path to find alternatives, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or exclude any cases. Guidance is present but minimal.

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