banking_compliance__rwa_from_exposures

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, computes, or modifies data. The agent has no information about side effects, authorization needs, or output format.

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 concise (one line) but at the cost of clarity. It front-loads the parameter format but omits crucial context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and rich parameter documentation, the description is highly incomplete. The agent cannot determine the tool's return value, computational logic, or how to interpret results, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 description adds that 'exposures' is a list of (exposure_amount, risk_weight), which clarifies the expected structure beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify data types, allowed ranges, or whether the list expects tuples or objects, leaving ambiguity.

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 only states the parameter structure 'exposures: list of (exposure_amount, risk_weight)' without explicitly stating that the tool computes risk-weighted assets (RWA). The purpose is implied by the tool name but not clarified, relying on the agent to infer that it calculates RWA from the given exposures.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. other banking compliance tools like buffer_check, capital_ratio, etc. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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