corporate_consolidation__consolidated_equity_check

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

The description only calls it a 'quick reasonableness check' without detailing behavior, side effects, or assumptions. With no annotations, it fails to disclose whether it reads data, modifies state, or performs validations. The term 'quick' hints at approximation but is unsubstantiated.

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 extremely concise (one short line), but this conciseness sacrifices essential details. It is not structured to be helpful; a single sentence lacks the space to convey purpose, parameters, or usage context.

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 complexity of consolidated equity calculations and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, the formula used, or how the calculation accounts for the parameters provided, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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%. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (pct_owned, parent_equity, goodwill_impairment, sub_post_acq_profit). While names are somewhat self-explanatory, terms like 'sub_post_acq_profit' require clarification that is absent.

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 'Group share of equity - quick reasonableness check', indicating a calculation of the group's equity share, but lacks specificity on what the check involves. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'goodwill_full' but does not clearly define the exact purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate between this 'quick reasonableness check' and more detailed tools like 'nci_share_of_profit' or 'goodwill_partial', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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