wacc_computation__relever_beta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only names the formula without discussing assumptions (e.g., constant debt), edge cases, return format, or limitations. This is insufficient for a computational tool.

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 concise (one line) but under-informative. It does not waste words but fails to provide necessary details, so it does not fully earn its place.

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, the description should explain the return value (presumably relevered beta). It does not. It also lacks differentiation from siblings and parameter context, making it incomplete for a 3-parameter computational tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not explain any parameter. The names 'tax_rate', 'debt_to_equity', and 'unlevered_beta' are standard but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 performs Hamada relevering to a target capital structure, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unlever_beta' and 'cost_of_equity_capm' by naming the method and direction.

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 use for relevering beta but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like 'unlever_beta' or 'cost_of_equity_capm'. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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