revenue_recognition__significant_financing_split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the basic transformation (splitting a deferred receipt) but does not disclose the calculation method (e.g., effective interest method), assumptions, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the domain tag and immediately states the action. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is present.

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 tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the output format (e.g., whether a map or separate values) or cover edge cases, leaving the agent with uncertainty.

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%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. However, it does not mention deferred_price, rate, or years by name, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. The output context ('cash selling price and interest') provides some hint but is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('deferred receipt') and clearly states the two resulting components ('cash selling price (revenue)' and 'interest'), making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling revenue recognition tools, this is distinct as it deals with financing components.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like allocate_transaction_price or contract_liability. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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