total_cost_ownership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool composes outputs from other engines, is not audited, and requires premium payment. It mentions 'regla 7' as a transparency rule. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, the nature of a calculation tool implies no side effects. The description is fairly transparent about limitations and cost.

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 verbose with multiple paragraphs, including extensive examples and disclaimers. While the front-loading is present ('ONE comparable number per strategy'), the level of detail, such as the specific components and ranking dynamics, could be trimmed without losing essential guidance. The inclusion of payment details also adds length.

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 complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the logic, the components, and the expected output (ranking with TCO breakdown). It does not explicitly describe the return format or schema, but the description implies a ranked list of strategies with score breakdown. The large number of sibling tools also increases the need for clarity, which the description partially addresses.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the role of key parameters like fob_value (baseline for scaling), candidates (default China+1), and the various optional cost factors (holding rate, capital rate, risk cost factor) in the overall TCO calculation. This context goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: computing total cost of ownership per strategy, ranking strategies, and explaining ranking dynamics. It uses specific verb phrases like 'composes PER STRATEGY' and 'ranks the strategies by TOTAL TCO'. It distinguishes itself as the comprehensive tool that 'ties the entire freight-pulse stack into one decision', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_landed_cost or lane_risk_index.

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 explicitly targets CFO and supply-chain-director roles and provides concrete use cases (nearshore vs China, air for high-value goods). It also includes an honest disclaimer about the indicative nature of the outputs. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or point to specific alternative sibling tools for more granular analyses.

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