calc_working_capital

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 it pulls open AR, AP, sales, and inventory from SAP B1, indicating a read operation, but it does not describe the output format, potential side effects, or whether any state changes occur. It adds context about the data source but omits return details, so it's only partially transparent.

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 two efficient sentences: the first lists the computed metrics and their formula, the second names the data source. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, avoids fluff, and every sentence adds value. Length is appropriate for a simple calculation tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description could be more explicit about what is returned (e.g., a record of DSO, DPO, DSI, CCC values). It states the metrics but not the return structure. Given the simplicity and the schema explaining periodDays, this is a noticeable but minor gap. Overall, it is adequate but missing a clear declaration of the output.

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 100%: the periodDays parameter is already described in the schema with meaning and default. The description does not add any additional semantic detail about periodDays or its interaction with the metrics, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 a specific task: calculating working capital efficiency metrics (DSO, DPO, DSI, CCC) from SAP B1 data. The verb 'pulls' and the resource 'SAP B1' make the purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from siblings like forecast_cash_flow or analyze_vendor_lead_time, which target different financial areas.

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 implies usage context—when working capital efficiency metrics are needed—but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear that it's a calculation tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other tools.

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