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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (buyer pays, Stripe takes, platform nets, seller nets, take rate) and explains the fee_bearer parameter. It does not mention side effects, but as a calculator this is likely harmless and sufficient.

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 plus a note on fee_bearer. It is relatively concise, but the information could be structured more clearly (e.g., listing return values or parameters). Still, it is not verbose and frontloads the purpose.

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 no output schema, the description describes the return conceptually. It covers the major behavior of the tool. It lacks detailed error handling or edge cases, but for a simple calculator this is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains fee_bearer and mentions defaults for processing fees. However, it does not explicitly describe charge_amount, application_fee_pct, or application_fee_fixed. The context provided is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 explicitly states it computes the three-way split for a single Stripe Connect charge. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are largely validation or reconciliation tools.

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 clearly implies usage for calculating a Connect split, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It could be improved by adding a note on prerequisites or cases where this tool is appropriate.

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