banking_compliance__nsfr

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the tool computes a ratio, any side effects, or required permissions, leaving the agent without critical information.

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 but fails to be useful. Under-specification is not conciseness; the single phrase does not earn its place as it provides no value.

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 likely complexity (computing a regulatory ratio) and the lack of output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It omits the formula, parameter definitions, and any context about the output, making it impossible for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. However, the description only contains 'nsfr' and does not explain that 'available_stable_funding' and 'required_stable_funding' are inputs for the NSFR 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 is '[banking-compliance] nsfr', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not explain what NSFR stands for (Net Stable Funding Ratio) or what the tool does, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like lcr or capital_ratio.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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