calculate_menu_item_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a side-effect-free computation, whether it is deterministic, or — most importantly for a metrics tool — how contribution margin is derived (e.g., selling_price - ingredient_cost) or how units_sold affects the outputs. The behavioral contract of the calculation is undisclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single tight sentence, followed by a compact Args list where each line earns its place. No redundancy or filler; the only nit is the Python-docstring formatting, which is slightly off-register for a tool description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are documented despite 0% schema coverage. What remains missing is the contribution-margin formula and how the optional units_sold default of 1 shapes the result.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines selling_price as realized price excluding tax and tips, ingredient_cost as direct cost for one unit, and units_sold as units in the analyzed period. It adds real meaning beyond the bare titles, though it omits units/currency and how units_sold is used.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (calculate) and the exact outputs (food cost and contribution margin) scoped to a single menu item, so the resource is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling analyze_menu_csv, but the single-item vs. CSV scope difference is inferable from the text.

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?

Nothing states when to reach for this tool versus analyze_menu_csv, nor any prerequisites or context about the period being analyzed. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and one-line purpose.

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