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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that registering books nothing, that default accounts 6950/1590 are created when missing, that per-call cost is $0.001 and free on failure, and limits on what can be edited post-depreciation. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a non-idempotent, non-destructive write.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and examples come first, then the enum semantics, then defaults, then the edit caveat and cost. No filler sentences; each clause carries distinct information despite the run-on style.

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 20-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain semantics (depreciation, averaging, account defaults, opening balances) thoroughly. It omits what a successful call returns (e.g., the created asset number) and which fields are effectively required, leaving a small gap.

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 65%, and the description meaningfully compensates: it explains each method enum (straight_line, declining_balance at rate_percent of book value, full, none for land), both averaging options, and the role of opening_accumulated and the account overrides. Some params (name, life_years/life_months, number default) remain undocumented in both, keeping it below a 5.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ("Put an asset the business bought in the register") with relatable examples (van, machine, laptop) and also covers the update path via the asset param. It distinguishes create vs. change behavior, but never names the neighboring tools (books_depreciate, books_dispose_asset, books_list_assets) to sharpen selection.

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?

Clear about when to register vs. when to edit ("To change one, pass asset:") and states the important constraint that after depreciation is booked only name, description, serial, warranty and tracking may change. It stops short of naming alternatives for depreciation/disposal, so routing to siblings is left implicit.

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