variance_analysis__material_usage_variance

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

The description explains only the meaning of 'std_qty' and that positive is favorable. It does not disclose the formula (e.g., (actual qty - standard qty) * standard price), the output value (e.g., variance amount), or any other behavioral traits. Without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 cryptic line. While short, it lacks clarity and structure. It does not effectively communicate the tool's purpose or usage.

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?

With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the formula, output, or how this tool differs from similar variance analysis tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for one parameter ('std_qty'), leaving 'act_qty' and 'std_price' completely unexplained. This is inadequate for a 3-parameter tool.

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 mentions 'material usage variance' and hints at a calculation involving standard quantity for actual output and a favorable direction. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool computes (e.g., 'computes material usage variance'), leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling variance analysis tools (e.g., material price variance, labor efficiency variance). No when-not or alternative instructions are provided.

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