percentage_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'calculate' and does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, how missing values are handled, whether it adds a column, or what the output structure is. The output schema exists, but the description itself adds little behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core action and resource.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves unclear what 'percentage change' means operationally (e.g., over rows, between values), when to choose it over siblings, and what side effects or output to expect.

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%, and the description only loosely maps to the parameters via 'column', 'sheet', and 'workbook'. It does not explain file_path format, sheet_name expectations, or how column is referenced, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Calculate') and resource ('column in a workbook sheet'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like summary_statistics or rolling_average, but the operation itself is distinct enough.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rolling_average or summary_statistics. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals about when percentage_change is the appropriate choice.

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