depreciation

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it supports straight-line or MACRS-style methods, but does not disclose return format, schedule granularity, or edge cases like partial-year handling. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra behavioral context is provided beyond method selection.

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 that states exactly what the tool does. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundant phrases or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the return format. It says 'schedule' which implies a series of values, but does not clarify whether it returns annual amounts, cumulative amounts, or a table. Given the small parameter set and annotations, the description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the output shape.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics, though it does echo the method choices ('straight-line or MACRS-style') which align with the schema's method values. The term 'MACRS-style' is not an exact match for 'double_declining', but it does hint at the intended method semantics.

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 the tool calculates a depreciation schedule, naming two methods (straight-line and MACRS-style). This distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like tax estimators and loan amortization, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for depreciation calculations but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as loan_amortization or break_even. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, leaving usage guidance to inference from the tool name.

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