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

With no annotations describing behavior, the description carries the burden and discloses important effects: depreciation stops here, a second disposal is refused, and a gain or loss is returned. It does not mention authorization needs or downstream accounting effects, but the most critical behavioral traits are surfaced.

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 dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the unit note and the two essential behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, the return value, and key behavioral constraints. It could add a little more about the expected asset state or relationship to other accounting records, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The added note that 'proceeds_minor is in MINOR units' repeats the schema's own MINOR units description and adds no new semantic value.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Record that an asset left the business on a date and return the gain or loss against net book value.' This makes the tool's purpose evident and distinguishes it from a generic delete or list operation, though it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools.

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 description gives clear usage context: use this tool when an asset leaves the business and a disposal gain or loss must be recorded. It does not name alternative tools like asset_delete or asset_journal, so there are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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