depreciation_units_production

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 performs a calculation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it modifies data, what the output format is, or any error conditions. For a calculation tool with 4 required parameters, 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a calculation tool, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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 depreciation calculation with 4 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the calculation method, parameter relationships, expected output format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't explain what 'cost', 'salvageValue', 'totalUnits', or 'unitsPerPeriod' represent, their units, or how they relate to the units of production method. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Calculate units of production depreciation', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'depreciation_declining_balance', 'depreciation_macrs', 'depreciation_straight_line', or 'depreciation_sum_of_years', leaving ambiguity about when to choose this specific depreciation method over others.

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 available in the sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other depreciation calculations, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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