generate_unit_economics_calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'Calculates' and lists outputs, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, or what the return format is. For a calculation tool, this is minimal behavioral transparency; an agent would have to infer safety and output structure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the verb and resource immediately, then lists specific outputs. There is zero fluff or repetition, making it optimally concise and scannable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only three parameters, all documented. The description lists outputs but does not specify the format of the result (e.g., a single number, a report, or a breakdown). For a simple calculation tool, this is a moderate gap—an agent would not know exactly what to expect back, though the inputs are clear.

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 is documented in the schema. The description adds context by listing metrics (e.g., LTV/CAC ratio) that imply how parameters are used, but does not directly explain parameter relationships or units beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but does not significantly enrich understanding.

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 states a specific verb 'Calculates' and resource 'SaaS unit economics metrics', listing concrete metrics (LTV/CAC ratio, payback period, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate blueprints or recommendations, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is narrow and obvious (calculating unit economics). No alternative calculation tools are in the sibling list, so usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided. A clear 'use when' statement or exclusion of non-applicable cases is missing.

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