calculate_markup_margin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates 'Returns selling price and the other metric' and notes that markup and margin are often confused. However, it lacks details on precision, rounding, or edge cases (e.g., zero cost).

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 sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the third sentence is a reference to another tool, and the inaccuracy about inputs undermines efficiency.

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's simplicity, the description should clearly map to the actual inputs and outputs. It fails to do so: it mentions inputs not in the schema and does not confirm that the required inputs are cost and selling_price. The output schema exists but is not described.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description misrepresents the inputs by claiming 'Inputs: cost and either markup % or margin %' while the schema only includes cost and selling_price. This misleading information detracts from the 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 states 'Convert between markup and margin' but the input schema includes only cost and selling_price, not markup% or margin%. This inconsistency reduces clarity. The purpose is discernible but compromised by the mismatch.

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 mentions use cases ('pricing decisions or COGS reporting') and references a related tool ('list_bundles'), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance among the many sibling calculators.

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