accounting.depreciation_straight_line

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world); the description adds substantive behavior: the per-year depreciation is capped at the remaining basis, and the final year amortizes the exact residual regardless of decimal places. Those are non-obvious edge-case rules that materially change results.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph: verb and formula first, then input constraints, then rounding and terminal-year rules, then an explicit exclusion. No sentence is redundant, and the most decision-relevant content leads.

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 an output schema present, the return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers inputs, constraints, rounding policy, and the final-year edge case. The one remaining hole is the accepted value set for `rounding`, which neither the schema nor the prose supplies.

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 do the work — and it does: life_years must be an integer >= 1, cost and salvage must be finite non-negative Decimal strings with cost >= salvage, decimals defaults to 0 and rounding to HALF_EVEN. The only gap is that the permitted values for the string parameter `rounding` are never enumerated (no enum in schema either), so an agent must guess valid tokens beyond the default.

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 names the specific operation (정액법 감가상각, straight-line depreciation) and gives the exact formula, which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling declining-balance and units-of-production calculators. It also explicitly scopes out monthly proration and mid-year acquisition, closing off ambiguity an agent might otherwise have.

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?

It clearly states the applicable case (straight-line, full-year periods) and explicitly says when NOT to use it ('월할이나 기중 취득 안분은 지원하지 않는다'). It doesn't name the sibling tools by name, but the method-specific framing makes the alternative choice obvious.

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