corporate_consolidation__goodwill_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It provides no behavioral traits such as side effects, return values, or required permissions. The description merely states the accounting context without explaining what the tool actually computes or returns.

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 short (one line) but lacks substantive information. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description is under-specified.

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 (3 required numeric parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the calculation formula, the expected output, or any assumptions. An agent would lack critical context to use the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The parameter names ('consideration', 'nci_fair_value', 'net_identifiable_assets') are self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify how they relate to the goodwill calculation. Baseline would be 3 only if schema coverage were high; here it is not.

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 identifies the tool as 'Full goodwill' and references IFRS 3 and US GAAP, making the purpose reasonably clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'calculates') and could more directly state what the tool does.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goodwill_partial'. The description does not specify conditions or prerequisites for using the full goodwill method.

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