analytics_food_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, how it is aggregated, how date filters affect results, or any other runtime behavior.

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 extremely short, which is not true conciseness but under-specification. With three parameters and no annotations, a four-word phrase does not earn its place as a sufficient explanation.

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 absent annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot reliably determine what to pass, what to expect back, or how this tool differs from sibling analytics tools.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It never explains what 'fields' controls, or what formats or semantics 'date_from' and 'date_to' expect. The phrase 'por producto' gives a hint about output granularity but nothing about the parameters.

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 identifies the domain and granularity ('food cost y margen por producto' = food cost and margin per product), which lets an agent know it is about per-product food cost. However, it lacks a verb, so it does not state whether the tool calculates, lists, or exports these figures, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling analytics or financial tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analytics_waros, financial_products, or menu_products. The description merely names the topic; it provides no conditions, exclusions, or context for selection.

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