analyze_project_profitability

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

With no annotations provided, the description needed to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or access requirements. It only states that it 'returns' calculated values, omitting any explicit statement about being read-only or any potential side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's safety and constraints.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of only two sentences that convey the core purpose and expected output. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or irrelevant 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?

While the tool has low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description fails to cover the meaning of the input parameter and does not explain what a 'D-Tools SI project' is or provide any context about the calculation. This inadequacy forces the agent to guess, making the description incomplete for safe operation.

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 a single required parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what this parameter represents (e.g., project ID, name, or another identifier). Without any parameter context, the agent cannot correctly assemble the call.

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 purpose: to analyze the financial profitability of a D-Tools SI project and specifies the exact return values (total cost, revenue, profit, gross margin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project which retrieve general project data, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project or other financial tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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