calc_quotation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool computes multiple quotation and profit outputs from cost and incoterm inputs. However, it does not explain exact formula behavior, how incoterms alter the calculation, or how zero/default fields are treated, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 opens with a concise Chinese summary and then presents a scannable parameter list. The length is justified by the 12 parameters, and there is no unnecessary prose.

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 complex 12-parameter calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input semantics thoroughly and states the output categories. It does not define the exact output structure or detailed per-incoterm formulas, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions, but the description's Args section defines all 12 parameters with meaningful details: duty_rate is a 0-1 range, exchange_rate direction is specified, and quote_currency defaults to the cost currency when empty. This fully compensates for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('算出') and resource ('外贸报价/利润核算'), and explicitly names the outputs: FOB/CIF/CFR, landed cost, suggested price, and profit. This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from the unrelated sibling research and outreach tools.

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 summary clearly states the tool is for foreign-trade quotation and profit calculation, giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling tool performs pricing calculations, so the ambiguity is minimal.

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