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

Goes well past the annotations: it explains the depreciation catch-up through the disposal month, the reversal of later-month depreciation, the single entry clearing cost and accumulated depreciation, the default gain account (4950) created when missing, and how paid_to is cleared. It also discloses pricing ('Costs $0.01 per call; nothing if it fails'), which no annotation covers.

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 core action and mode distinction, and every clause carries information about accounting behavior. It is dense and slightly run-on with nested parentheses, but there is no filler.

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 seven-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the accounting effects, defaults, undo, and cost model thoroughly. The one hole is catch_up, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 coverage is already 86%, yet the description still adds real meaning: price defaults to 0 meaning a write-off, paid_to is the bank or income account that gets cleared, and gain_account defaults to a newly created 4950 account. Only catch_up is left unexplained in both places, a minor gap against otherwise strong added 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('take an asset out of the books, sold or written off') and immediately distinguishes itself from the plain-delete sibling by describing disposal accounting rather than removal. An agent can tell this apart from books_delete_asset and books_depreciate without opening either schema.

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 operating conditions: 'A write-off has no price' and 'undo: true brings it back', which tells the agent how to select the two modes and how to reverse. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over books_delete_asset or books_depreciate, leaving that inference to the agent.

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