calculate_smoking_savings

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses inputs and outputs, but lacks information on side effects, permissions, or safety (e.g., read-only nature). The tool is likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose is in the first sentence, and the second adds usage guidance and a pointer to related tools. Excellent structure.

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 has an output schema, the description adequately covers expected return values (daily/monthly/yearly savings, life-time recovered). For a simple calculator with few parameters, it is sufficient, though it could mention data handling or precision.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with all parameters described. The description adds little beyond listing 'cigarettes/day, pack price' and does not mention the optional cigarettes_per_pack parameter. Baseline score 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 money and health time saved from quitting smoking, with 'Use for motivation and budgeting.' It distinguishes from siblings somewhat by mentioning related calculators via list_bundles, but could be more specific about its unique scope.

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 says 'Use for motivation and budgeting,' providing a usage scenario. However, it does not specify when not to use it or offer explicit alternatives, relying on a hint to list_bundles for related tools.

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