calculate_roi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output metrics but does not state that this is a pure calculation with no side effects, nor does it mention assumptions (e.g., lifetime definition, discount rate), units for 'savings' or 'payback period', or how the metrics are derived. The description stays at the level of intent without exposing operational behavior.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and enumerates the key outputs. There is no unnecessary information or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool and the richness of the input schema, the description is minimally viable. It lists the outputs, which partially compensates for lacking an output schema, but it does not clarify units for savings/payback period or define 'lifetime'. The description is adequate but leaves some interpretive gaps, particularly for a calculator with optional parameters like system size and CO2 reduction.

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%, with every parameter having a clear description and units. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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's function with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('ROI metrics'), and lists concrete outputs (final cost, savings, payback period, lifetime savings, ROI %). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_subsidy or calculate_environmental_impact, which target different metrics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions for use, or contrast with sibling tools. While the purpose is clear, a user could benefit from knowing this is the choice when ROI or payback period is needed, but no such direction is given.

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