depreciation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns Year-1 depreciation plus the full yearly schedule and that book value converges to salvage_value. It also lists the accepted methods, giving a good sense of 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 well-organized: a one-line summary, a methods list, a return behavior note, and a compact Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste.

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 that the output schema exists, the description needn't detail return structure, but it already states the output shape. Combined with the parameter explanations, it is complete for this calculation 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?

The Args section adds meaning beyond the bare schema, explaining each parameter with constraints (cost, salvage_value <= cost, useful_life_years > 0) and the currency formatting. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with 'Asset depreciation schedule' and then enumerates the three supported methods. This clearly identifies the tool as a depreciation calculator and distinguishes it from sibling financial calculators like loan_amortization.

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 sets clear context: it is for computing depreciation schedules with specified methods. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings, so there's clear context without exclusions.

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