Price sensitivity grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful context: it specifies the output rows, the metric (margin/MT), and default shock values (-25%/-10%/+10%/+25%). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or how config/prices defaults affect results, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence with no filler; the core computation is front-loaded and the output structure plus defaults are packed efficiently. The sentence is fairly dense, but each clause contributes necessary information.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output structure and defaults adequately. However, it omits when-to-use guidance and any caveats about config/prices behavior, so an agent gets a workable but not fully complete picture.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that product selects one product and that shocks are configurable with defaults, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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?

States a specific computation (margin-per-tonne sensitivity for one product under price shocks) and describes the output shape (all-metals row plus per-metal rows with margin/MT under configured shocks). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like product_margins or breakeven, but the resource and metric are clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as product_margins or breakeven. The phrase 'under price shocks' implies a scenario, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing instructions.

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