calc_depreciation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the computation is read-only, what method values are accepted, or what the output schedule looks like. The description is entirely non-transparent about tool behavior.

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 under-specified, consisting of only 'COMPUTE. Depreciation schedule.' This is not conciseness but rather an absence of content, providing no useful structure or front-loaded information.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a description of this length is grossly inadequate. It fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results.

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%, and the description does not mention or elaborate on any of the five parameters (cost, method, salvage_value, useful_life_years, currency). The agent receives no semantic help beyond the raw schema property 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 'COMPUTE. Depreciation schedule.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'calc_depreciation', providing no additional specificity such as supported depreciation methods or output format. It fails to distinguish the tool from sibling calc_* tools beyond naming the resource.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calc_npv, calc_irr, or other financial calculation tools. The description is silent on context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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