banking_compliance__lcr

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

No annotations provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, permissions, output format). The description carries full burden but offers zero transparency.

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 short (one line) but sacrifices all meaningful content. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no value to the agent.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the output, the formula, or domain context, leaving the agent without essential information 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names 'hqla' and 'net_outflows_30d'. While these names hint at an LCR calculation, the description does not explain units, constraints, or how they relate to the tool's purpose.

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 '[banking-compliance] lcr' is a tautology, merely repeating the tool name with a prefix. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., compute the LCR ratio). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like buffer_check or nsfr.

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. Given many sibling banking compliance tools, an agent cannot infer appropriate context.

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