roi_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 reveals the tool returns a set of financial metrics, but doesn't explain the meaning of the 'verdict', any underlying assumptions, or that it is purely a calculation with no side effects. For a calculator, some of this is implied, but key behavioral context (e.g., limiters like efficiency_gain_pct <= 90) is missing.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the calculator's purpose. However, 'Engineering ROI calculator' is redundant with the tool name, and the output list could be more structured. Still, it is efficient and without fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter coverage. The description lists the return values but leaves the 'verdict' ambiguous and doesn't explain formulas, units, or constraints. For a tool with six inputs and no structured output metadata, the description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to fully understand its behavior.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't mention any of the six inputs or clarify ambiguous ones like team_size or hourly_rate. The schema descriptions for manual_hours and efficiency_gain_pct help, but the rest rely on self-evident names. The description should have compensated for the coverage gap but doesn't.

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 identifies the tool as an ROI calculator for engineering, with a specific list of outputs (current manual cost, annual saving, net benefit, ROI %, payback months, 3-year NPV, verdict). This distinguishes it from sibling calculators that focus on other engineering 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 vs alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or that the tool is a pure read-only calculation. Sibling tools are similar calculators, so guidance would be valuable but is entirely absent.

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