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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that periods sum exactly to the base, which is a useful behavioral guarantee. It also mentions using the table's rate, life, and convention, and the option to override. It doesn't mention idempotency or side effects, but the computation nature is clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a precise guarantee about period summation. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 computation tool with 13 parameters but no required ones, the description plus schema covers the modes, defaults, and overrides. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return values per the rubric. It could mention what happens when both asset and pricing fields are provided, but that's a minor 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds context about the two modes (stored asset vs. not in register) and the override options, but doesn't add much beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Build'), a clear resource ('depreciation schedule'), and the key scope options (stored asset vs. not in register, per year/month, to residual/zero). It distinguishes itself from siblings like asset_add or asset_report by focusing on the depreciation schedule computation.

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 implies when to use it: to build a depreciation schedule for a stored asset or price one not in the register. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list shows other asset operations, and the description's scope is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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