aro_computation__accretion_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only calculation or what the output is (e.g., a schedule of values). The description only gives a vague behavioral hint about the final balance.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief to convey necessary information for a tool with three parameters and no other documentation. It is not front-loaded with critical usage details.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke this tool. It does not describe the calculation, expected inputs, or return value.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (opening_pv, discount, years). 'Years' is implied by 'year-by-year', but there is no mapping or explanation of their meaning or units.

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 'year-by-year unwinding' which indicates it computes an accretion schedule, but it does not explicitly say 'computes' or 'calculates'. The phrase 'closing balance equals the settlement amount' adds specificity, but the purpose could be clearer for an AI agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like aro_computation__initial_aro or aro_computation__revision_adjustment. No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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