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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a pure calculation and lists the outputs, but it does not mention return format, rounding behavior, handling of invalid values (e.g., price < cost), or any side effects. The obvious read-only nature of a calculator earns a middle score.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core calculation purpose and input requirements. It contains no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

For a simple two-input calculator the description is mostly adequate, but the absence of an output schema and annotations requires the description to clarify whether all three values are returned together. The phrase 'see the right number' is ambiguous given that multiple outputs are listed.

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 0%, and the description only reuses the parameter names 'cost' and 'price' without adding units, examples, constraints, or formulas. It does not clarify that margin and markup are calculated differently from the same inputs, leaving parameter semantics underdescribed.

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 calculates gross profit, margin percentage, and markup percentage from cost and price, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling calculators like ecommerce_profit_margin_calculator or product_pricing_calculator, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It provides clear context by saying 'Enter cost and price to see the right number for your business pricing strategy,' which implies when to use it. But it offers no exclusions or alternative tool guidance among the many sibling calculators, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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