depreciation_macrs

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. 'Calculate' implies a read-only computation, but the description doesn't specify whether this creates persistent data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the schedule output takes. For a calculation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward calculation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., annual schedule, monthly breakdown, percentages vs. dollar amounts), doesn't mention any assumptions or limitations of MACRS calculations, and doesn't provide context about when this specific depreciation method is applicable versus alternatives.

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 'MACRS depreciation schedule' which implies both cost and recovery period parameters, but adds no specific semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 50% schema description coverage (only recoveryPeriod has a description), the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'cost' parameter. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers half the parameters adequately.

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 resource ('MACRS depreciation schedule'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from other depreciation methods like 'depreciation_straight_line' or 'depreciation_declining_balance' by specifying MACRS, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'calculate_depreciation_deduction' which might be a sibling tool with overlapping functionality.

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. With multiple depreciation-related tools in the sibling list (depreciation_straight_line, depreciation_declining_balance, depreciation_sum_of_years, depreciation_units_production, calculate_depreciation_deduction), there's no indication of when MACRS is appropriate versus other methods or what distinguishes this calculation from the generic 'calculate_depreciation_deduction' tool.

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