calculate_wacc

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 only states the calculation purpose without detailing behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific inputs or permissions, what the output format might be, or any error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema.

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 with a single phrase, 'Calculate Weighted Average Cost of Capital,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but based solely on structure and brevity, it earns full marks for being tightly written.

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 a financial calculation tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly, what the inputs mean, or what to expect as a result, making it inadequate for practical use.

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 none of the 5 parameters (equityValue, debtValue, costOfEquity, costOfDebt, taxRate) are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what these parameters represent, their units, or how they are used in the WACC calculation, leaving them entirely undocumented.

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 'Calculate Weighted Average Cost of Capital' restates the tool name (calculate_wacc) with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the financial metric (WACC) but lacks a clear verb-resource combination or differentiation from sibling tools like analytics_dcf_valuation or calculate_financial_ratios, which are also financial 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools (e.g., analytics_scenario_comparison or calculate_npv) that might be relevant for related financial analyses, 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.