accounting.dupont_3

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond that — inputs are Decimal strings, revenue/total assets/total equity must be non-zero, rounding is HALF_EVEN at `decimals` (default 6), and negative equity is deliberately not rejected so the caller must validate sign. That is meaningful disclosure for a calculation 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the formula, then constraints, then rounding/sign caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; only the sign-check remark is somewhat terse in phrasing.

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 input format, validity constraints, and numeric precision. The remaining gap is competitive positioning against accounting.dupont_5, which would help an agent choose correctly between the two decompositions.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it establishes that the monetary parameters are Decimal strings, that three of the four required inputs are non-zero-constrained (implicitly leaving net_income able to be zero/negative), and that `decimals` defaults to 6 with HALF_EVEN rounding. It does not explain the unit/currency convention or the exact meaning of total_equity vs. average equity.

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 and resource ('DuPont 3단계 분해로 ROE = ...를 계산한다') and spells out the exact formula, so the agent knows precisely what is computed. The '3단계' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from accounting.dupont_5, but the sibling is never named or contrasted explicitly.

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 and the ROE context imply when to use it (ROE decomposition into three components), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. Critically, the obvious alternative accounting.dupont_5 (five-step decomposition) is never mentioned, so the agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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