Расчёт экономики товара

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: all amounts must be in one currency, tax and commission are monetary sums, and the output is not a final financial report. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is concise. Every word contributes to understanding or constraints.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description fails to describe what the calculation returns or how to interpret the result. The parameter semantics are too vague for an agent to correctly assemble inputs, and the output is undefined. The caveat about not being a final report is helpful but insufficient for full correctness.

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. It only clarifies that tax and commission are monetary amounts and that all sums share a currency. It does not explain the meaning of revenue, cost, logistics, storage, advertising, or other, leaving the agent to infer their roles for 8 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 clearly states the tool performs a scenario calculation for one redeemed unit from input costs. It also specifies it is not a final financial report, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies scenario analysis but does not mention any sibling tools or exclusions beyond the caveat that it is not a final report. This leaves the agent without routing context.

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