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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations by explaining the calculation algorithm and the salvage floor, which is essential for understanding how depreciation stops.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the method, formula, and constraint without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the method name.

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 output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient. It explains the algorithm and the salvage floor. Minor ambiguity about year semantics is resolved by the schema, making the tool well-specified.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters, but the description adds meaning by showing how value, usefulYears, and salvage are used in the formula. However, 'year' is not explicitly tied to the formula in the description, though the schema clarifies it is 1-based.

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 it computes double-declining-balance depreciation with a specific formula (2/usefulYears of book value) and a salvage floor. This directly distinguishes it from sibling depreciation calculators like straight-line or sum-of-years-digits.

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?

The tool name and description make it obvious when to use this tool: for double-declining-balance depreciation calculations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the method is well-defined and the context is clear.

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