credit_analysis__covenant_headroom

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Positive = compliant,' which hints at the return value but does not describe side effects, permissions, or data access. The mutation potential is unclear (likely read-only but not stated).

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 very short (two sentences) with no wasted words, but it sacrifices essential information. It could add parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 three parameters and financial context, the description lacks formula explanation, return format, and usage context. No output schema or additional notes are provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 should define the three parameters. It does not mention actual, covenant, or lower_is_better. The agent must guess their meanings from the tool name and schema types.

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 states it computes headroom as a fraction of covenant level and clarifies that positive values indicate compliance. This gives a clear purpose and distinguishes it from sibling credit analysis tools like dscr or interest_coverage. However, it could be more specific about the formula (e.g., (actual - covenant) / covenant).

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 like covenant buffer check or other coverage ratios. The description does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would need to infer usage from the name and sibling tools.

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