calculate_depreciation_deduction

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 states it 'calculates' a deduction, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of tax depreciation calculations, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the two parameters (assetId and taxYear) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats (e.g., string format for assetId, numeric year for taxYear), or constraints, failing to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'tax depreciation deduction for an asset', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'depreciation_macrs' or 'depreciation_straight_line', which might handle similar calculations but with different methods, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other depreciation methods or tax-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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