wacc

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe calculation. The description adds the detail 'con escudo fiscal de la deuda', clarifying the tax shield inclusion but does not expand on return format or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 extremely concise at one phrase, but it sacrifices necessary elaboration. While not verbose, it lacks structure and fails to provide sufficient context beyond a label.

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?

For a financial model with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the formula, output format, or how the tax shield is applied. Sibling tools and complexity demand more context for correct invocation.

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%, with all five parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, relying entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool computes the weighted average cost of capital with a debt tax shield. This verb+resource definition gives a precise purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools beyond the name, though none directly compute WACC.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capm_costo_equity or escudo_fiscal. The description lacks any context of applicability or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.