ecl_computation__ecl_single_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only provides the formula but omits critical details like whether the tool is read-only, authorization requirements, rate limits, or assumptions (e.g., PD/LGD ranges). This is insufficient for a computation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and formula, making it quick to parse.

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 simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details about output format, constraints on input values, and any default behavior. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke without additional context.

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%, but the description maps the formula to the parameters (PD, LGD, EAD, discount). This adds some context beyond the schema, but it does not explain units, valid ranges, or how the discount factor is applied (e.g., default value if missing). Partial compensation for low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool computes ECL for one period using the formula PD x LGD x EAD x discount. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lifetime_ecl (multi-period) and scenario_weighted_ecl (scenario-based), providing a specific verb and resource.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the formula without mentioning appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling names imply single-period vs. multi-period, but the description itself does not clarify.

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