financial_analysis__dupont

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the formula and does not cover important aspects like whether the tool computes each component separately, returns them, or just the final ROE. There is no mention of error handling, data requirements, or output structure.

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 at one sentence containing the core formula. This is appropriate for a simple calculation tool, though slightly more structure (e.g., listing components) could improve usability without losing conciseness.

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 output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values (e.g., does it return intermediate margins or just the final ROE?). The formula alone is insufficient for complete understanding, especially with 4 parameters and no documentation.

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?

The parameter schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not provide any help beyond the formula. It does not explain what net_income, revenue, assets, or equity represent in the context of DuPont analysis (e.g., average vs. end of period). The agent receives no semantic guidance.

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 performing DuPont analysis (ROE decomposition into margin, asset turnover, leverage). It is specific about the formula and distinguishes from broader financial ratio tools like profitability_ratios or liquidity_ratios found in siblings. However, it could be more explicit that this tool calculates all three components and returns the final ROE.

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 (e.g., profitability_ratios for net profit margin, or other decomposition tools). There is no mention of prerequisite calculations or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the formula alone.

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