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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing beyond the word 'Depreciation' — no mention of calculation method, formula, required inputs, side effects, or return behavior.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A definition this bare cannot be considered well-structured because it contains no useful content to organize.

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?

With 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral description, the definition is wholly inadequate for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly. Even basic details like which parameters are required or what depreciation method is used are absent.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are vacuous templates like 'Cost to process' and 'Years to process' that merely append 'to process' to the parameter name. The description itself adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to guess how parameters relate to depreciation calculation.

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 'Depreciation: Depreciation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without any verb or resource. It fails to state what the tool does, such as calculating depreciation from the provided parameters, and provides no differentiation from the many financial 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like x402-loan-amortize, x402-present-value, or x402-discount-calc. The description offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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