depreciation_declining_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it 'calculates' a schedule but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., period-by-period table, summary values), whether it's a read-only calculation or has side effects, or any performance considerations. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a calculation tool and front-loads the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 financial calculation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the output format, doesn't provide context about when to use declining balance versus other depreciation methods, and doesn't clarify parameter semantics beyond the minimal schema coverage. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 description mentions 'declining balance' but doesn't explain what the parameters represent beyond what's minimally inferred from their names. With only 25% schema description coverage (only the 'rate' parameter has a description), the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters (cost, salvageValue, usefulLife). It doesn't clarify units, valid ranges, or relationships between parameters, providing marginal value over the bare schema.

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 'declining balance depreciation schedule', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling depreciation tools (MACRS, straight-line, sum-of-years, units production) beyond naming the method, which would require additional context about when to choose declining balance over other methods.

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 alternative depreciation calculation methods available in the sibling tools list. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other depreciation approaches, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.

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