asin_profit_calc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about return fields (brand, title, price, fulfillment) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like API calls or estimation methodology. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds use case examples and return information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing return fields (brand, title, price, fulfillment). It does not explain the profit calculation formula, but for an agent, the description is complete enough to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters (asin, target_margin_pct, cogs, marketplace_id). The description focuses on output rather than parameter 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 states the tool estimates profit margin for an ASIN, with specific verb 'estimate' and resource 'ASIN'. It provides example queries like 'can I make money on this ASIN' and differentiates from siblings like asin_buybox_history or asin_comparables by focusing on profitability.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('can I make money on this ASIN', 'profit calculator', etc.) and mentions when to use it. It does not exclude alternatives, but with many sibling tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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