corporate_consolidation__goodwill_partial

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

The description only states the method but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., goodwill amount), any assumptions, or behavior beyond the annotation scope. No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the burden but fails to do so.

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 very short (one line) but lacks essential details that would make it useful. It is not appropriately sized; conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.

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 goodwill calculation, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the formula, expected result, or handle edge cases (e.g., zero NCI).

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%, yet the description provides zero information about the three parameters (pct_acquired, consideration, net_identifiable_assets). The agent receives no guidance on how to populate these fields.

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 'Partial goodwill: NCI measured at proportionate share of net assets,' which is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'corporate_consolidation__goodwill_full' (which uses fair value for NCI).

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 that this tool is for partial goodwill measurement, but it does not explicitly contrast with the full goodwill method or provide when-to-use guidance. The agent would need prior knowledge to choose correctly.

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