gross_margin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the output set (gross margin, profit, markup), but this overlaps with purpose and provides no additional behavioral details like edge-case handling or return format.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and lists the key outputs and inputs. No filler or redundant 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 simple two-parameter calculation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It names all three outputs upfront and requires no additional detail to understand what the tool does.

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% (both revenue and cogs have descriptions). The description only restates the source parameters without adding clarity on units, valid ranges, or relationships, so it adds no meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Calculate' and names the exact resources (gross margin, gross profit, markup) and inputs (revenue, COGS). It clearly distinguishes from sibling financial calculators like percent_change or break_even by stating its unique 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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need gross margin, gross profit, or markup from revenue and COGS. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity makes the intended use obvious without ambiguity.

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