inventory_costing__lcnrv_writedown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core computation (writedown or 0) but omits details on output type, negative values, prerequisites, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return condition. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 fails to specify the output format (e.g., number type, sign convention) or edge cases. For a simple tool, more completeness is expected to ensure proper use.

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 adds minimal detail: it mentions 'cost' and 'NRV' but does not clarify their units, allowed ranges, or whether any adjustments are applied. The meaning is largely left to parameter names.

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 it computes an IAS 2 lower of cost and NRV writedown, returning 0 if NRV >= cost. It specifies the standard (IAS 2) and the resource (inventory writedown), distinguishing it from sibling tools that compute COGS.

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 usage for inventory writedown calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other inventory costing tools or depreciation tools. No exclusions or context are given.

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