decline_sensitivity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that parameters are varied independently and EUR is computed, but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. As a computational tool, it is likely safe, but details like idempotency or data persistence are missing.

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 concise, with a clear two-paragraph structure: an overview of functionality followed by an 'Args:' section. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could include removing the repetition of parameter names in the first paragraph.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but inferred), the description need not detail return values, but it does mention the output format (sorted by impact). It covers all 5 parameters and key behaviors. Edge cases or error conditions are not addressed, but for a sensitivity analysis tool, the description is largely complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each required parameter (qi, di, b) with units and the optional 'economic_limit' with default. The 'parameter_ranges' parameter is well-described with an optional dict mapping to low/high values and default behavior. However, units for 'b' and 'economic_limit' are implicit, and no constraints on values are given.

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 performs sensitivity analysis on decline parameters for tornado chart data, specifying the varied parameters (qi, Di, b, economic limit) and the output (EUR at low/high values sorted by impact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate_eur' or 'fit_decline'.

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 for tornado chart data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_price_sensitivity' or 'mc_eur'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, relying on the tool name and context to infer purpose.

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