Breakeven index prices

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It mentions the method ('uniform cost/revenue multiple applied to current prices'), which adds insight into how the calculation works. However, it does not describe potential side effects, error behavior, or the nature of outputs beyond 'prices'. Since this is a read-only calculation tool, the lack of side-effect warnings is acceptable, but more context (e.g., that it uses sample configs by default) would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core concept and adds the methodological detail about the uniform multiple. There is no redundant information, and the phrasing is efficient. It fully earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format. It says 'implied per-metal index prices', which implies a mapping of metal symbols to prices, but does not explicitly state the structure. Defaults for config and prices are covered in the schema, and the product requirement is clear. The description is adequate for a calculation tool, though it could be more explicit about the output shape.

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 (config, prices, product) is already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, such as clarifying the structure of config or the expected format of prices. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden, and the description offers no extra value.

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 'implied per-metal index prices at which a product's margin/MT hits zero', which is a specific and well-defined purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like product_margins (which likely returns margins) and price_sensitivity (which analyzes sensitivity) by focusing on the breakeven point. The verb 'implied' conveys computation without being ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like product_margins and price_sensitivity, the description does not explain scenarios where breakeven is more appropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. The user must infer the tool's role based on its name and purpose.

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