wacc_computation__wacc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or side effects. The verb 'computation' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit, leaving ambiguity.

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 very short (10 words) with a namespace prefix. It is concise but lacks informational density. For the complexity of the tool, it could be slightly longer to cover key details without being verbose.

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, no annotations, and a complex nested input, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't describe return values, assumptions, or input format. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the seven parameters. Terms like 'tax_rate' and 'debt_value' are named but lack context on format (e.g., percentage vs decimal) or units. The description mentions 'market-value weights' but doesn't connect to the input fields.

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 WACC using market-value weights, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cost_of_equity_capm and relever_beta by focusing on the final WACC calculation.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different weight bases (e.g., book-value weights). The description is self-contained but lacks comparative context.

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