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

Description provides minimal behavioral context: limit of 100 assets, comparison of accounting vs tax schedules, and a summary output. No disclosure of whether the tool mutates data, requires authentication, or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description should carry the full burden but fails to cover key traits.

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?

Description is a single sentence, very concise, but it omits structure like a separate purpose statement or parameter details. It is not excessively long, but the brevity sacrifices completeness. A more structured format would improve usefulness.

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?

Given 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description lacks crucial details: what the summary contains, how to interpret the output, and any prerequisites. The tool is moderately complex but the description does not adequately inform an agent how to use it or what to expect.

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 has 3 parameters with only 33% description coverage (only 'assets' has label '자산 목록'). The tool description adds no parameter-level context; it does not explain fiscal_year or output_format beyond the enum values. Despite low coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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?

Description indicates bulk depreciation calculation for up to 100 assets, comparing accounting and tax schedules, producing a summary including tax deduction denial. This differentiates from sibling tools like calc_depreciation_schedule (likely single asset) and calc_tax_adjustment (likely more detailed adjustment). However, the phrasing '등 요약' is vague, slightly reducing clarity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The description implies bulk usage via '최대 100건' but does not clarify when to choose this tool over calc_depreciation_schedule or calc_tax_adjustment.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the calculation without disclosing side effects, permissions, output format, or behavior on invalid inputs. Minimal transparency for a tool with 9 parameters.

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, front-loaded with key info (single asset, methods, yearly). Every word is functional, but could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the schedule's structure (e.g., yearly breakdown columns, totals) or return format. Lacks completeness for a tool of this complexity.

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 67% (6 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond schema; it merely lists methods. No explanation of parameter interplay or defaults.

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?

Description explicitly states single asset and three depreciation methods (정액법·정률법·생산량비례법) and yearly schedule. The name and description contrast with sibling `calc_bulk_depreciation`, clearly differentiating scope.

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 description implies single-asset usage but does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like `calc_bulk_depreciation` or `compare_industry_life`. No when-not or alternative guidance provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool computes specific adjustments but does not disclose side effects, return format, error handling, or assumptions. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details.

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 very concise, capturing the core purpose in a single line. However, it is not structured to highlight parameter usage or provide additional context. It is front-loaded but benefits could be improved with parameter mapping.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, how to use the carried_over_denial parameter, or any assumptions of the simple model. Context is lacking for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Only one of three parameters has a description in the schema, and the description does not explain any parameters. The Korean text hints at book depreciation and tax limit but does not map explicitly to the schema parameters. With low schema coverage (33%), the description fails to compensate.

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 the tool compares accounting depreciation vs tax depreciation limit and computes adjustments like denial, shortfall, and carryforward. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calc_bulk_depreciation and calc_depreciation_schedule which focus on different aspects of 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?

The description implies usage for tax adjustment calculations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calc_bulk_depreciation or get_useful_life. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits such as output format, precision, or any side effects. The description does not compensate for the missing 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by including parameter information without being overly verbose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the output format, how results are presented for multiple industries, or additional context needed for correct usage.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely mentions 'asset and acquisition cost' and 'by industry', failing to provide meaningful details about the four parameters, their enumerations, or how to use them.

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 title and description explicitly state the tool compares standard useful life and depreciation across industries for a given asset and cost. It clearly differentiates from siblings like calc_depreciation_schedule (full schedule) and get_useful_life (single value).

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 description implies the use case of cross-industry comparison but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose behavior for missing inputs or errors. The description only lists outputs without 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key criteria and outputs. No unnecessary words; every element earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists the four output fields (standard useful life, allowable range, default depreciation method, legal basis), which is fairly complete. Missing details on output format or typical use cases, but overall adequate for simple lookup.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it repeats the criteria but does not explain output format or parameter interactions beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the criteria (asset type, industry, building structure) and outputs (standard useful life, allowable range, default depreciation method, legal basis). It distinguishes from sibling calculation tools by being a retrieval tool, but could explicitly state 'lookup' or 'retrieve' for clarity.

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. The sibling tools are all calculation-oriented (calc_bulk_depreciation, etc.), but the description does not explicitly direct the agent to use get_useful_life for retrieval and the others for computations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as read-only nature, default behavior with empty parameters, or the scope of data returned. This is a significant gap for a list 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. However, it could be more structured with details, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the lack of schema descriptions, annotations, and output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter usage, output format, or provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any parameter semantics (e.g., industry_code format, asset_filter enum meaning, show_rates effect). The description adds no value beyond parameter names.

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 provides a summary of asset classifications, useful lives, and depreciation rates by industry (or common), which distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calc_depreciation_schedule. Usage is implied as a lookup tool, but no when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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