credit_analysis__fixed_charge_coverage

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the formula without explaining behavior like division by zero, units, or that 'capex' is assumed maintenance capex. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand potential edge cases.

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, using a single line with no redundant words. It could be improved by adding a verb, but it efficiently conveys the core formula.

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 simple mathematical tool with no output schema, the formula is largely complete. However, it lacks context about the output (e.g., ratio interpretation, typical ranges) and error handling. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not exemplary.

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%, so the description is essential. It maps each parameter to the formula terms: ebitda to EBITDA, capex to maintenance capex, fixed_charges to interest+scheduled principal+leases. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names and 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 provides the formula for fixed charge coverage ratio, which implicitly defines the purpose. However, it lacks a verb like 'calculates' to explicitly state the action. The formula distinguishes it from sibling coverage ratios like DSCR or interest coverage.

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 versus alternative coverage ratios (e.g., DSCR, interest coverage). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this ratio is appropriate.

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