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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the output structure (standard brackets and concentration), which is consistent and helpful.

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 informative sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and complete parameter schema, the description adequately explains the tool's output concept (aging brackets and client concentration). However, it lacks explicit detail about the return format (e.g., table or aggregated values), which the description should compensate for.

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?

The input schema covers the parameter 'documentos' with a detailed description including format and meaning of negative days (dias_vencido). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 portfolio aging with standard brackets and client concentration. The verb 'aging' and resource 'cartera' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like ratio calculations.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool's specificity, but alternatives are not mentioned among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the existence of three model variants but no additional behavioral context (e.g., calculation method, data requirements).

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it omits important details such as output interpretation, making it slightly less concise in information content.

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 full schema parameter coverage, the description lacks any information about the output (e.g., Z-score value, threshold interpretation) and does not explain how the 'modelo' parameter affects calculation. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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?

All 8 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 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 clearly identifies the tool as calculating Altman Z-Score for bankruptcy risk and explicitly states the three variants (pública, privada, servicios), which distinguishes it from sibling financial tools that calculate other ratios or metrics.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ratios_endeudamiento or dupont. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where a different model variant should be chosen.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description does not add behavioral details like output structure or behavior of detalle_maximo, missing opportunity.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded, but could include more detail without harming conciseness.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not specify the format of the amortization table or the effect of detalle_maximo. For a 5-parameter tool with complex output, this is insufficient.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, earning baseline 3.

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 it computes an amortization table for a loan using French or German system. It distinguishes from sibling tools like van_tir, wacc, etc., which are other financial calculations.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling financial tools, a sentence specifying contexts (e.g., loan amortization) would help, but it's missing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the calculation method (CAPM, Hamada relevering), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, clear sentence in Spanish that fully captures the tool's purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity and the richness of annotations and schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core behavior but does not specify the output format (e.g., returns a decimal Ke). This is a minor gap.

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 100%, so each parameter is already defined. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it computes cost of equity (Ke) via CAPM with an option to releverage beta using Hamada method. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like WACC, DCF, etc.

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 cost of equity calculation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wacc or dcf. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output includes corrected amount and adjustment, but does not elaborate on formula or edge cases.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description minimally covers the essentials. It explains the input concept and output summary but omits the exact calculation formula, which may be needed for full understanding.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description. The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 monetary correction using an index (IPC/UF) and outputs corrected amount and adjustment. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other financial calculations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the calculation method (Gordon model for terminal value). It does not disclose assumptions, edge cases, or output structure.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant or superfluous words.

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 calculation tool without output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering the main inputs and outputs. However, it could briefly mention assumptions (e.g., constant growth) or limitations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides; it merely summarizes the overall calculation.

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 DCF valuation, listing key components (present value of FCFs, terminal value using Gordon model, EV, equity value). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like van_tir (NPV/IRR) and wacc (WACC calculation).

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 DCF valuation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for related valuations, but no contrasting or exclusion criteria are given.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the output is a table but does not detail the structure or behavior (e.g., order, edge cases). It does not contradict annotations. Given the strong annotation set, the description adds limited but acceptable behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the tool's essence. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose and method options.

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?

No output schema exists. The description mentions 'tabla de depreciación anual' but does not specify the table's columns (e.g., year, depreciation amount, accumulated depreciation, book value). For a computation tool, this is a notable omission. Other aspects (methods, formulas) are covered.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'acelerada' formula as 'vida útil / 3' with a Chilean legal reference. This contextualizes the default 'lineal' and clarifies the special case for 'suma_digitos'.

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 it is an annual depreciation table using three methods (lineal, acelerada, suma de dígitos). It identifies the specific resource (depreciation calculation) and verbs are implicit. It distinguishes from sibling financial tools by focusing exclusively on depreciation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or on selecting among the three methods. There is no mention of prerequisites, comparisons, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description does not add behavioral details beyond being a decomposition computation. It does not contradict annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and optional mode efficiently, earning its place.

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?

The description explains inputs and optional mode but does not specify the output format or interpretation. Given no output schema, this is a gap. However, for a simple numerical decomposition, the context is partially adequate.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds conceptual meaning by explaining the decomposition formula (margen × rotación × apalancamiento) and optional mode, which the schema alone does not convey. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 the tool performs DuPont decomposition of ROE into 3 factors (margin, turnover, leverage) with an optional 5-factor mode. It distinguishes the two modes and uses a specific verb ('Descomposición') and resource ('ROE'). Among sibling tools, none explicitly target DuPont analysis, making it unique.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the 5-factor version ('si se entrega EBIT y UAI'). However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for the intended use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds the formula (gasto × tasa) and confirms it computes a tax savings, which aligns with safety profile. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with name and core function. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary text.

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?

Tool is simple and no output schema exists. Description explains the calculation, though it does not explicitly state that the output is a numeric value. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description only restates the formula without adding new meaning beyond schema. No additional parameter context is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates tax shield as tax savings from deductible expense (gasto × tasa). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like punto_equilibrio or depreciacion which are different financial calculations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not provide context such as when other tools might be more appropriate or any prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the computed outputs. No contradictions. The description could mention that it is purely computational with no side effects, but annotations sufficiently cover behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the method name and outputs. It is efficient yet covers the essential purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but no waste.

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 10 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and good annotations, the description is minimal. It explains what the tool does but not how parameters map to outputs or any calculation logic. More detail would improve completeness for a complex financial calculation.

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 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond naming the outputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool calculates cash flow using the indirect method, listing the output components (FCO, FCI, FCF, net flow). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are other financial calculations, by focusing on cash flow.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given sibling tools cover various financial metrics, explicit usage guidance is lacking.

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

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

The description explains computational behavior: it applies a configurable tax rate and subtracts PPM payments to compute a saldo. This adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) which only indicate idempotent read operations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose (tax name and country), then key variants and output concept. Each part earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the tax amount or the saldo after PPM). While the mention of 'saldo contra PPM' hints at the output, it is not fully specified. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, simple calculation), this is a gap.

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%, but the description adds meaning by grouping parameters (e.g., 'tasa configurable' for regimen and tasa_custom, 'saldo contra PPM' for ppm_pagados). This helps agents understand the relationship between parameters beyond individual 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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as computing Chile's first category tax, specifying rates (14A 27%, 14D3 25%, or custom) and the credit for PPM. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like punto_equilibrio or ratios that serve different financial functions.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description (Chilean tax calculation), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a tax regime defined) or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe computation. Description adds 'valor futuro o presente' but no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and optionality. Every word is necessary and no redundancy.

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 simple calculation tool with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is sufficient. It lacks return value details, but annotations imply a numerical result. Slightly more context on output would improve completeness.

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 100%, so field descriptions in the schema are comprehensive. The description mentions 'aporte periódicos opcionales', reinforcing the optional nature of aporte_periodico, but adds no new semantic value beyond the 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?

Description clearly states 'Interés compuesto: valor futuro o presente, con aportes periódicos opcionales.' This explicitly identifies it as a compound interest calculator for future or present value with optional periodic contributions. It distinguishes well from sibling financial tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or provide context for selection among the many sibling financial tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the calculation nature, which is consistent but not enhanced.

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?

Single sentence with clear action, default context, and configurability. Every word is informative, no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, safe annotations), the description covers the essential operations and default. Could briefly mention it returns a numeric result, but not necessary for completeness.

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%, so the description adds minimal value: it repeats the default rate context already present in the 'tasa' parameter description. No extra meaning beyond 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 the tool's action ('Agrega o extrae IVA de un monto'), specifies the default Chilean rate, and distinguishes it from sibling financial calculation tools by focusing on VAT operations.

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 Chilean VAT calculations with a default 19% rate, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'impuesto_empresa' or 'van_tir', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it compares two exercises and returns a score from 0 to 9, but does not disclose potential limitations or edge cases.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of a detailed schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from explaining the significance of the score range or specific financial criteria evaluated.

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 100%, with each parameter fully described in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 a Piotroski F-Score (0-9) for financial quality/strength by comparing two fiscal years. The specific verb+resource and scope distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ratios_liquidez' or 'dupont'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or situations where another financial tool (e.g., altman_z_score) would be more appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'configurable rate' but does not disclose return format or behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

Single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple calculation tool with rich annotations and clear schema, the description is adequate but lacks any mention of the output (e.g., what the result represents or its format). Completeness is moderate.

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 100% with both parameters well-described. The description reiterates 'ingresos brutos' but adds marginal new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates PPM (monthly provisional payment) based on gross income with a configurable rate. The Spanish text is specific and distinguishes from sibling financial tools like 'punto_equilibrio' or 'van_tir'.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but the absence of alternatives or prerequisites leaves the agent to infer context from sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying what the tool calculates (break-even, contribution margin, safety margin), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded, but could be slightly improved with structured formatting for readability.

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?

The description explains what the tool calculates, but since there is no output schema, it does not specify the return format or structure. For a calculator tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the output shape.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., costos_fijos, precio_unitario).

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 break-even point in both units and monetary amount, along with contribution margin and safety margin. It uses specific financial terms and distinguishes itself from sibling financial tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'van_tir' or 'ratios_liquidez'. The usage is implied by the tool's name and context among financial calculators, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds context by specifying the output metrics (DIO, DSO, DPO, CCC), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as assumptions about period length or data requirements. This is adequate but minimal beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose (rotations and cash conversion cycle) and lists the key metrics. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description names the four specific ratios returned, which is helpful. It implicitly states outputs are in days. However, it lacks details on formulas, assumptions, or potential edge cases. For a calculation tool with clear inputs, this is nearly complete, but could include a formula hint.

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%, so each parameter has a clear description. The tool description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only names the output ratios. While this complements the schema, it does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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 rotations and cash conversion cycle metrics (DIO, DSO, DPO, CCC). It implies the verb 'calculates' and distinguishes from sibling tools like ratios_liquidez or ratios_rentabilidad, which focus on other financial aspects. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, which would make it a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for applicability. For a financial ratios tool, it assumes the agent knows when to compute efficiency ratios, but explicit guidelines are absent.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already communicate that this is a safe, read-only computation. The description lists the computed ratios but adds minimal behavioral context beyond that.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Apalancamiento') and lists the key ratios. Every word is necessary, with no unnecessary verbiage.

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, the description compensates by listing the computed ratios, providing functional completeness. However, it does not specify return format or units, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the schema itself provides adequate semantics. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships, so it adds no extra value beyond the 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 explicitly lists the leverage ratios computed (apalancamiento, debt/assets, debt/EBITDA, interest coverage), clearly distinguishing it from sibling ratio tools like liquidity or profitability. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool calculates these ratios, leaving it slightly implicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool computes liquidity ratios, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., what is destroyed, auth needed) are disclosed, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the ratio category and lists the specific ratios, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description lacks information about the return format or output structure. For a computation tool with 4 inputs and 4 ratios, the agent might need to know what the tool returns (likely a JSON object with the ratios). No output schema exists, so the description should compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description lists the ratios but does not clarify how they map to parameters (e.g., inventory used for quick ratio). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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 the tool computes liquidity ratios (current, quick, cash, working capital). The verb 'Ratios de liquidez' implies calculation, and listing specific ratio types distinguishes it from sibling tools like ratios_rentabilidad and ratios_endeudamiento.

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 liquidity analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are given.

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

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'en porcentaje' (outputs in percentage), which clarifies the return format. No contradictions.

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?

Single concise sentence that instantly conveys the tool's output. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

Though brief, it explains the output (ratios in percentage) and given the simple numeric inputs with schema descriptions, the tool is adequately specified for its purpose.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond naming the ratios, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates profitability ratios: gross, operating, net margins, and ROA/ROE. It's specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ratios_liquidez.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is obvious. The tool is a specific financial calculator; usage is implied by its name and sibling context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that the tool computes range and average, which is useful but does not disclose assumptions or data sources.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists key information. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The description lacks details about the return value format (e.g., what 'range and average' means numerically). No output schema exists to compensate. Given 7 parameters and no required fields, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. No additional value from the main description.

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 valuation by comparable multiples (EV/EBITDA, P/E, EV/Sales) and includes range and average. It distinguishes from sibling tools like DCF and NPV/IRR, though it could be more explicit about the output format.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., DCF, ratio tools). The description provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios where multiples valuation is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it performs calculations, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, return structure, or assumptions. The description is adequate given the annotations.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's outputs without any unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

The description lists the key outputs (VAN, TIR, payback, profitability index), which is sufficient for a calculation tool. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not specify the format or order of results, leaving some ambiguity. Overall, it is mostly 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 VAN (NPV), TIR (IRR), payback simple y descontado, and profitability index, which are specific financial metrics for project evaluation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other financial analyses.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. It merely lists the outputs, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection among the many financial tools listed.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds computational behavior (absolute/percentage variation and conditional CAGR), which is valuable beyond annotations.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify return values (e.g., whether both absolute and percentage are returned, or format). For a simple calculator, this is a gap but not critical given low complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaning for the 'periodos' parameter by linking it to CAGR calculation. The other parameters are self-explanatory from names and 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 clearly states the tool calculates absolute and percentage variation between two values, and CAGR if multiple periods. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling financial tools.

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 comparing two values, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned despite the presence of many sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe calculation. The description adds the detail 'con escudo fiscal de la deuda', clarifying the tax shield inclusion but does not expand on return format or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 extremely concise at one phrase, but it sacrifices necessary elaboration. While not verbose, it lacks structure and fails to provide sufficient context beyond a label.

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 financial model with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the formula, output format, or how the tax shield is applied. Sibling tools and complexity demand more context for correct invocation.

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%, with all five parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, relying entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool computes the weighted average cost of capital with a debt tax shield. This verb+resource definition gives a precise purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools beyond the name, though none directly compute WACC.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capm_costo_equity or escudo_fiscal. The description lacks any context of applicability or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the computation logic (the formula for NOF), which provides transparency beyond annotations about what the tool actually computes.

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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently states the purpose and the formula. No wasted words; every part is necessary.

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?

The description defines the tool's output (working capital and NOF) but does not explicitly state the return format. With no output schema, the description could hint at whether the result is a single number or both values. It is adequate but could be more explicit.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description names the three required parameters in the formula but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 accounting working capital and operating funds need (NOF), including the formula. It uses specific financial terms and implicitly distinguishes from sibling financial tools like ratios or DCF.

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 provides the formula and context (working capital and NOF), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like other financial calculations. Usage is implied by the formula, but no exclusion or alternative guidance is given.

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