profit_margin_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the outputs but does not disclose behavioral details such as input validation constraints (e.g., cost must be non-negative, revenue > 0) or error handling. However, the tool is a simple calculator, so the lack of deep behavioral context is somewhat acceptable.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key outputs and inputs. No extraneous words, every part provides value.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description lists all three computed outputs and the inputs. It is mostly complete, though it could specify the return format (e.g., numeric or percentage). Still, it sufficiently informs an agent about what the tool does and returns.

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%, with both parameters already described ('Cost of goods/services', 'Selling price / revenue'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Calculate' and specific resources: gross profit margin, markup percentage, and net profit from cost and revenue. It distinguishes this tool from sibling calculators like 'markup_calculator' or 'percentage_calculator' by naming the outputs.

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 implies usage for profit-margin calculations but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like the sibling 'markup_calculator', so the agent lacks context for choosing between similar tools.

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