calculate_profitability

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey that this is a read-only calculation with no side effects. While 'calculate' implies a non-mutating operation, the description does not explicitly state that it makes no external calls or that it uses static fee tables. It does disclose the range of outputs and a beginner-friendly explanation, but it omits details like whether it requires network access or has rate limits, leaving some behavioral traits to inference.

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 then enumerates outputs. It wastes no words and reads efficiently, though the long list makes it slightly heavy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a high score.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description must provide substantial context. It offers only an overview of computed results and fails to explain parameter purpose, calculation assumptions (e.g., Amazon India fee structures), or usage scenarios. An agent would lack sufficient guidance to correctly set inputs like fulfillment_method or expected_return_rate, making the tool underspecified for real-world invocation.

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% and the description adds zero parameter-level detail. It lists output fields but never explains inputs like selling_price, product_cost, fulfillment_method, or shipping_cost_override. It does not clarify defaults, units, or relationships between parameters, forcing the agent to rely solely on the bare schema titles, which carry no semantics.

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 specifies the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'Amazon India per-order profitability', listing a comprehensive set of computed outputs (referral fee, closing fee, fulfilment cost, GST, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_revenue by focusing on profitability rather than revenue, making its purpose 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preferring this over calculate_revenue for detailed financial breakdowns or note any exclusions. The only implicit hint is the name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between profitability and revenue calculators.

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