calculate_wacc_rate

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

Given no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentioned the output format (decimal rate), but does not specify whether input costs are percentages or decimals, nor does it clarify edge-case behavior or side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for a financial calculation tool.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action and output format.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical assumptions about WACC calculation, such as whether cost of debt is pre- or post-tax and the expected input units. This makes the tool ambiguous for an AI agent without additional documentation, especially given the lack of parameter descriptions.

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?

With a 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the meaning of five parameters. It provides only a general hint about market-value capital weights, but does not explain the expected format or role of each parameter (e.g., whether cost_of_debt is pre-tax), leaving the agent to rely on assumptions.

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 WACC as a decimal rate using market-value weights. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling financial calculation tools like CAPM or DCF by clearly identifying its specific formula.

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 the tool is for WACC computation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as CAPM or DCF, nor does it mention any exclusions. The intended context is clear from the tool name, but the description lacks direct comparison or conditions for use.

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