markup_margin_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a pure calculation tool ('Calculate... from cost + markup %'), but it does not clarify whether the returned margin is a percentage or dollar amount, nor does it disclose any formula, rounding, or edge-case 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 efficient sentence plus a compact input reminder. Every word contributes: the verb, the outputs, the input relationship, and the parameter list. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

For a low-complexity, two-parameter calculator, the description covers the main concerns: what it calculates, from what inputs, and what the outputs are. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying the margin's return format or formula, but the core selection and invocation needs are met.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates both parameter names and adds one useful hint by calling markupPercent 'markup %', implying it is a percentage. However, it does not specify expected formats (e.g., 25 vs 0.25) or explain how the inputs map to the two outputs, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Calculate') and names the exact outputs ('selling price and margin') plus the required inputs ('cost + markup %'). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the profit_margin_calculator sibling by anchoring it to markup percentage rather than margin ratio.

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 phrase 'from cost + markup %' conveys the clear usage context: use this tool when you have cost and a markup percentage and need selling price or margin. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple calculator this context is sufficient.

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