Rentabilidad real

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating exactly which costs feed the margin and by clarifying the two output modalities. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. The first defines the calculation, the second gives mode semantics, and the third gives the usage trigger. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, calculation components, mode behavior, and when to invoke it. An example of the expected output shape would have made it slightly more complete, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and calling the tool.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the choice between 'periodo' and 'mensual' in terms of 'rango puntual' vs. 'serie mes a mes', which is not fully captured in the schema. It does not need to repeat parameter names or types.

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 states what the tool computes: real margin after ML commission, shipping cost, product cost, and taxes. It also gives concrete query triggers ('si ganan plata, cuánto margen dejan o qué producto no conviene'), which effectively separates it from generic reporting tools. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling tool, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: use this tool when the user asks about profitability, margin, or unprofitable products. It also explains when to use each mode ('periodo' for a specific range, 'mensual' for a month-by-month series). It does not name alternative tools or state negative selection criteria, so it is not a perfect 5.

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