calculate_ppc_bids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a pure calculation via the verb 'Calculate' and mentions the current_cpc check, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, calls external services, or has any side effects. There is no statement about reversibility or data persistence, which is expected for a calculation tool but still unstated.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists all key outputs. Every phrase adds value—no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and well-structured as a list of results.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation: it does not state that selling_price is required, nor explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., whether profit_per_unit substitutes for product_cost and conversion_rate), nor any validation logic. An agent would lack crucial guidance on how to properly fill in the 7 inputs, especially given the low schema coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description must explain parameter meaning, but it only touches current_cpc ('check whether a bid you are already running is profitable') and alludes to unit economics without mapping to specific parameters like selling_price, product_cost, conversion_rate, or profit_per_unit. The purpose of category is entirely unexplained. This leaves most parameters ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Amazon Ads bids'), and enumerates the exact outputs (break-even ACOS, target ACOS, break-even/target CPC, bid ladder for match types, clicks per order, ad cost per order, profit after ads). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like plan_ppc_campaign and suggest_ppc_keywords by focusing on numeric bid calculation from unit economics.

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 implies usage when one has unit economics data and wants to compute bids, and adds a specific use case for current_cpc (checking profitability of an existing bid). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like plan_ppc_campaign, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'unit economics'.

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