Compute Depreciation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a non-mutating operation. The description adds 'calculates' which aligns, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., permission requirements, data freshness) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with minimal waste, though the second sentence is somewhat long. The information is front-loaded but could be more structured (e.g., listing the breakdown components explicitly).

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially explains return values (breakdown by component, total annual amount). However, with many sibling tools and no output schema, more detail on the result structure or edge cases would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'bien immobilier et une année donnée' linking to property_id and year, but does not explain valid values, formats, or relationships. More detail is needed to compensate for the 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 clearly states the tool calculates LMNP depreciation details for a property and year, with a breakdown by component. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'depreciation details' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_fiscal_year or compute_loan_schedule.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_fiscal_year or compare_micro_bic. The description implies it's for annual depreciation but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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