Compute covenant metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states it 'computes' metrics, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, whether it modifies inputs, or what side effects exist. There is no mention of permissions, reversibility, or output format, which is a gap given the lack of 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 is front-loaded with the verb and purpose, then lists the metrics. It is concise with no filler. However, it is slightly terse, omitting potential clarifications about output format or prerequisites, though it remains efficient for its length.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool has nested objects (trial_balance). The description does not explain the return value structure (e.g., an object with the listed metric keys), nor does it mention that the input trial_balance should come from parse_trial_balance (though the schema does). It lacks essential context about expected output and dependencies, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (config and trial_balance) with 100% coverage. The description adds a list of computed metrics, which gives hints about the output shape but not about the parameters themselves. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not add significant parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('financial metrics used by loan covenants from a trial balance'), and enumerates the exact metrics it produces (revenue, net_income, ebitda, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like parse_trial_balance (which parses input) and evaluate_covenants (which presumably evaluates compliance), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is used when you have a trial balance and need covenant-related metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It names the source ('from a trial balance') but does not mention that the trial balance must first be parsed via parse_trial_balance, nor does it contrast with evaluate_covenants.

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