accounting.depreciation_units_of_production

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description adds the non-obvious edge case: cumulative production exceeding total_units does not error and book value floors at salvage. It also discloses the rounding/scale post-processing, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the formula and followed by constraints and edge-case behavior; nothing is filler. It could be slightly tighter by merging the rounding sentence into the parameter notes.

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, return values need not be described, and the description covers formula, input constraints, rounding, and overflow behavior. Only the enumeration of accepted rounding modes is missing for a fully self-contained definition.

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%, so the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: total_units must be an integer >= 1, period_units is a per-period integer list, cost/salvage are Decimal strings, and decimals/rounding defaults are restated. The only gap is that valid rounding mode values beyond the HALF_EVEN default are not enumerated.

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?

States a specific verb (계산한다) and resource (생산량비례법 감가상각 스케줄) and then gives the exact formula, which uniquely distinguishes it from the straight-line and declining-balance siblings without needing to name them.

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 formula implies when the method applies, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over accounting.depreciation_straight_line or accounting.depreciation_declining_balance, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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