depreciation_sum_of_years

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 what the tool calculates, without mentioning whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects, what the output format is, or any performance considerations. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or provide context about the depreciation method. For a financial calculation tool with three parameters, more detail is needed to be fully usable.

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 has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'cost', 'salvageValue', and 'usefulLife' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their units, valid ranges, or how they relate to the calculation. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('sum-of-years-digits depreciation schedule'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling depreciation tools like 'depreciation_declining_balance' or 'depreciation_straight_line', which would require mentioning the specific calculation method as a distinguishing factor.

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 methods available as siblings (e.g., 'depreciation_declining_balance', 'depreciation_macrs'), there's no indication of scenarios where sum-of-years-digits is preferred, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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