banking_compliance__capital_ratio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the operation. It does not disclose side effects, such as whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies data. For a calculation tool, read-only behavior can be inferred but not confirmed.

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 fluff. It conveys essential information efficiently, though it could be slightly more specific about the calculation.

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 simple nature of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for what the tool does. However, it lacks output format (e.g., ratio as decimal or percentage) and does not mention any boundary conditions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'capital' can be CET1/Tier1/Total and 'rwa' is risk-weighted assets, adding meaningful context. However, it does not specify units, format, or constraints on these parameters.

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's purpose: computing capital ratio (CET1, Tier 1, or Total) against risk-weighted assets. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the types of capital, but the verb 'works for' is less precise than 'calculates'.

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 alternative banking compliance tools like buffer_check or lcr. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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