asset_depreciation_schedule

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly says 'Writes nothing' and details edge-case behavior: the final line residual-adjusts to match cost minus residual, units_of_production assets require a unitsForecast or return an incomplete projection with a warning, and a foreign assetId yields a not_found error. This is rich behavioral disclosure that far exceeds the annotation's minimal signal.

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 dense yet efficient, with every sentence contributing distinct value: purpose, output shape, residual behavior, units_of_production caveat, and safety/error semantics. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains readable without unnecessary jargon.

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 and 0% param coverage, the description provides a complete-enough contract: return row fields, residual adjustment guarantee, unitsForecast requirement, and error code reference. It leaves little ambiguous for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining fromPeriod's format and inclusivity, toPeriod as optional, and unitsForecast's required shape for units_of_production assets. It does not explain proRata or params, but the most critical parameters are semantically defined in plain language, which is a strong addition given the schema is silent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Project the full remaining depreciation schedule for ONE asset', and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling preview tool by noting it uses 'the same pure engine as the preview so a line never disagrees with a live preview'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from asset_depreciation_forecast or asset_depreciation_preview.

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 gives clear context: it projects the full remaining schedule for one asset over a date range, and explicitly ties its behavior to the preview engine for consistency. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scoping to 'ONE asset' and the optional toPeriod strongly imply when this tool is appropriate vs. other asset tools.

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