Compliance certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys non-destructive behavior implicitly ('computes', 'evaluates', 'renders') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It covers the core action but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then outlines the end-to-end flow. No filler or redundancy; every clause 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?

For a tool with nested objects, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains the composite nature and output format. The schema covers parameter details. It could mention potential limitations or dependencies beyond the schema, but the given information is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 documents all three parameters, including the trial_balance format. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), a clear resource ('full markdown covenant compliance certificate'), and the scope ('for a period'). It distinguishes itself from granular siblings like compute_covenant_metrics and evaluate_covenants by emphasizing the end-to-end nature in one call.

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 when to use this tool (when the full certificate is needed, not just metrics or evaluation) and highlights its composite nature. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for using them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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