depreciation_straight_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates a schedule, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a pure computation, whether it requires specific inputs beyond the schema, or what the output format looks like (e.g., annual/monthly breakdown). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward calculation tool, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the schema alone for execution, which is workable but not ideal.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With schema description coverage at 33% (only 'usefulLife' has a description), the description doesn't compensate by explaining 'cost' or 'salvageValue'. However, the baseline is 3 since the schema covers all parameters structurally, even if descriptions are minimal.

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 action ('Calculate') and the specific resource ('straight-line depreciation schedule'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'depreciation_declining_balance' and 'depreciation_macrs' by specifying the straight-line method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text.

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 methods (e.g., declining balance, MACRS, sum-of-years, units of production) that are present among sibling tools. It lacks any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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