fixed_asset_accounting__disposal_result

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the agent has no insight into side effects, read-only status, or output format. The description only hints at the sign of the result, leaving critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 brief (one short sentence) but at the cost of being under-specifying. It does not earn its place as it omits essential functional details, making it more inadequate than concise.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide even a basic explanation of what the tool computes or returns. It is severely incomplete.

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 information about the three required parameters (proceeds, cost, accumulated_depreciation). The agent is left to infer their meaning from parameter names alone, which may be insufficient.

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 'Positive = gain, negative = loss.' implies the tool computes gain/loss but doesn't explicitly state it as a verb+resource. It lacks clarity on what exactly the tool does and how it differs from sibling fixed asset tools.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus other fixed asset or disposal-related alternatives, nor any indications of prerequisites or limitations.

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