Calculadora de rentabilidad real

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does it well: it specifies that it prompts for missing values and that cost and taxes are NEVER invented (no silent defaults), and that it reports the ACOS the product can withstand. It does not describe output formatting or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the value (the peso-by-peso breakdown) and is dense but purposeful; the second sentence on missing-input handling and ACOS is useful. Slightly heavy for two sentences but every clause earns its place.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description adequately describes what is produced (net profit, margin, break-even ACOS) and how missing inputs are handled. A brief note on the response shape would complete it.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already documented. The description reinforces which factors feed the formula and the no-invention rule for costo/impuestos_pct, but adds little syntax or defaulting detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (compute real profitability per unit) and enumerates the exact formula: sale price minus ML commission, ads, taxes, shipping, and cost. An agent can distinguish it from ml_comisiones or ml_publicidad, which only supply a single input to this calculation.

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?

Gives clear context — it pulls real listing fees and live Product Ads spend for a period, and asks the user for missing inputs, implying it is the tool for full-margin analysis. However, it names no sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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