crypto_accounting__cost_less_impairment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that impairment is to the lowest observed price and no reversal above carrying cost, which is key. However, it does not mention whether the tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 that conveys the core purpose and a key caveat (simplified vs. IFRS). It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Could benefit from explicit structure, but it is concise and not verbose.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value (e.g., impairment amount, new carrying value), prerequisites (e.g., asset must be recorded at cost), or edge cases. The tool is simple, but the description leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the description should explain parameters beyond their names. It only lists 'cost', 'lowest_observed', and 'current_price' without clarifying units, periods for 'lowest_observed', or acceptable values. The description adds minimal semantic value.

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 identifies the tool as an impairment calculation under IAS 38 cost model for crypto assets. It specifies the verb 'impair' and the resource 'cost less impairment', and distinguishes from siblings like fair_value_remeasurement by referencing the cost model and reversal rules.

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 a hint about IFRS reversal rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other crypto-accounting tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context (e.g., for assets held under cost model vs. fair value model).

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