fixed_asset_accounting__straight_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns annual depreciation, requires positive inputs, or handles errors. The description is completely silent.

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 but not appropriately concise; it omits essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficient.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with zero documentation, the description fails to provide a complete picture. Even a simple depreciation calculation requires stating the formula and assumptions.

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%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters (cost, residual, life_years). It does not explain how they relate to the calculation or any constraints (e.g., life_years > 0).

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 is a tautology, simply restating the tool name 'straight_line' with a prefix. It does not specify what the tool does, e.g., compute straight-line depreciation. The sibling tools include other depreciation methods, but no differentiation is provided.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like double_declining_schedule or units_of_production. The description implies it is for straight-line depreciation but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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