cvp_breakeven__breakeven_sales

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool performs a calculation, what the output represents, or whether it has side effects. Absolute lack of behavioral context.

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 extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It provides no useful information. True conciseness would be achieved with a brief yet informative statement, which is absent here.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the computation (breakeven sales = fixed costs / cm_ratio) and the nature of the result. It provides absolutely no context, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'fixed_costs' and 'cm_ratio'. It does not explain that fixed_costs are total fixed costs and cm_ratio is contribution margin ratio. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 is a tautology: it merely repeats the tool name with a prefix. It does not specify what 'breakeven_sales' computes (likely sales revenue needed to break even) or differentiate it from the sibling 'cvp_breakeven__breakeven_units'.

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 like 'breakeven_units' or other CVP tools. The description offers no context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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