profit_margin_calculator

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 implies a read-only pure calculation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly confirm that or disclose any edge-case behavior (e.g., handling of negative values, rounding, or return format). This is adequate for a simple calculator but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and inputs with no fluff. Every word earns its place; it is efficiently concise without being under-specified.

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 2-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the formula, whether it returns both profit and margin, or any assumptions (e.g., margin = profit/revenue). An agent might need to infer the output format, creating a gap for a tool that could otherwise be fully self-explanatory.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'revenue' and 'cost' but does not clarify definitions (e.g., gross revenue, total cost) or units. The names in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra context, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('gross profit and profit margin %') from revenue and cost. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like markup_margin_calculator (which likely computes markup) and fee calculators, as it focuses on profitability metrics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as markup_margin_calculator or break_even_calculator. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer suitability without explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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