calculate_wacc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that inputs should be decimal rates but does not state the formula used (e.g., E/(E+D) * Re + D/(E+D) * Rd * (1-t)), whether tax_rate should be decimal or percentage, output behavior, or any assumption (e.g., market values). For a calculation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for confident use. It omits the WACC formula, decimal vs percentage convention for each rate input, and output format, and does not mention that market values should be in the same currency unit. An agent could call it with wrong conventions (e.g., percentages instead of decimals, tax rate given as 25 instead of 0.25).

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 only mentions 'decimal-rate inputs' without mapping to specific parameters. It does not clarify semantics like tax_rate being decimal, cost rates as decimals, or market values in currency units. The parameters are named self-evidently, but description compensates little for zero schema coverage.

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?

Description says 'Calculate weighted average cost of capital from decimal-rate inputs' – a clear verb (calculate) and resource (WACC) with the key input format note. It is not a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like validate_financial_model or calculate_dcf.

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 this is for computing WACC from decimal-rate inputs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative financial tools like calculate_dcf or get_capital_structure. There are no exclusions or listed alternatives.

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