lease_accounting__amortization_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It states basic purpose but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, side effects, or if it requires specific input formats. Only a minimal functional description is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with a useful tag. It is concise and efficient, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing key parameters or output). No extra words, but some necessary detail is missing.

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 and three required parameters, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return values, assumptions (e.g., payments at end of period), or limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fails to clarify the meaning of 'payment' (annual?), 'rate' (interest rate?), or 'term_years' (integer years?). The names alone are insufficient, and the description adds no additional parameter details.

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 the tool computes a 'year-by-year liability rollforward for payments in arrears,' specifying the resource (liability rollforward) and action (generating schedule). It adds context with '[lease-accounting]' and distinguishes from siblings like lease_liability and rou_depreciation.

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 generating an amortization schedule for leases with payments in arrears, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. others (e.g., lease_liability for initial liability, aro_computation__accretion_schedule for similar rollforward). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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