depreciacion

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the output is a table but does not detail the structure or behavior (e.g., order, edge cases). It does not contradict annotations. Given the strong annotation set, the description adds limited but acceptable behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the tool's essence. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose and method options.

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?

No output schema exists. The description mentions 'tabla de depreciación anual' but does not specify the table's columns (e.g., year, depreciation amount, accumulated depreciation, book value). For a computation tool, this is a notable omission. Other aspects (methods, formulas) are covered.

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 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'acelerada' formula as 'vida útil / 3' with a Chilean legal reference. This contextualizes the default 'lineal' and clarifies the special case for 'suma_digitos'.

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 is an annual depreciation table using three methods (lineal, acelerada, suma de dígitos). It identifies the specific resource (depreciation calculation) and verbs are implicit. It distinguishes from sibling financial tools by focusing exclusively on depreciation.

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 or on selecting among the three methods. There is no mention of prerequisites, comparisons, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative.

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