Calculate Quotation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the computation chain (direct cost → overhead → margin-based price → tax), which is real behavioral content. However, it never states that this is a pure, non-mutating calculation with no persistence, nor how currency or defaults (PEN, 15% overhead, 30% margin) affect the result.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core computation and lists the derived values in calculation order. Nothing is wasted, though the total absence of usage context makes it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Against that, 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no usage context leave the agent guessing about the currency input and when this tool belongs in the workflow.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It conceptually names four of the inputs (hours×rate as direct cost, overhead percentage, target margin, tax rate) but omits 'currency' entirely and gives no units or format for any of them.

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?

States a specific verb ('Calcula') and enumerates the exact quantities produced: direct cost, overhead, margin-based sale price, and tax. An agent knows precisely what computation this performs. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, generate_quote_pdf, which presumably consumes this output.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the quote-generation siblings. The agent must infer that this is the numeric engine that feeds generate_quote_pdf.

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