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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that depreciation is weighted toward early years, which is useful conceptual context, but it does not disclose edge cases like year out of range or behavior for year 0.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the method and its defining trait.

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 simple calculator tool with a complete schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more explicit that the result is computed for a specific 'year' parameter, but the schema already documents that.

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 100%, with clear definitions for value, salvage, usefulYears, and year. The description's mention of 'depreciable base' hints at the relationship between value and salvage, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 identifies the depreciation method and its key characteristic of weighting the depreciable base toward early years, which distinguishes it from straight-line and other methods. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' and does not state that it returns the depreciation for a given year.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as declining-balance or double-declining-depreciation. The description only states the method's characteristic, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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