punto_equilibrio

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying what the tool calculates (break-even, contribution margin, safety margin), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded, but could be slightly improved with structured formatting for readability.

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?

The description explains what the tool calculates, but since there is no output schema, it does not specify the return format or structure. For a calculator tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the output shape.

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 does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., costos_fijos, precio_unitario).

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 tool calculates break-even point in both units and monetary amount, along with contribution margin and safety margin. It uses specific financial terms and distinguishes itself from sibling financial tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'van_tir' or 'ratios_liquidez'. The usage is implied by the tool's name and context among financial calculators, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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