cvp_breakeven__contribution_margin

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate that the tool is a read-only computation, what it returns, or any side effects. The description provides zero 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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about the tool's function. Front-loaded content is missing; the bare minimum of purpose is not conveyed.

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's simplicity (two numeric inputs, no output schema), the description should at least state the formula or the output (e.g., 'Contribution margin = price - variable_cost'). It provides no contextual completeness, making it inadequate 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?

The input schema has two parameters (price, variable_cost) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters represent (e.g., price per unit, variable cost per unit). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 '[cvp-breakeven] contribution_margin' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not state that the tool computes contribution margin (price minus variable cost) or provide any meaningful purpose. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'breakeven_units' or 'breakeven_sales'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when needing contribution margin vs. breakeven point). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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