ecl_computation__provision_matrix

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

No annotations are present, and the description only mentions that the output includes a 'total'. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or any other behavioral traits. The agent is left to assume it is a safe computation, but this is not explicit.

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 concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices critical information. While brevity is valued, the lack of parameter and usage detail makes it only minimally acceptable. A slightly longer description with key details would improve this.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to convey what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any constraints. The agent has insufficient information to invoke this tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and two parameters (aging_balances, loss_rates) that are unexplained. The description only says 'per aging bucket' but does not clarify the structure or expected interpretation of these parameters. The agent cannot determine what format or values to provide.

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 it computes simplified-approach provisions per aging bucket and includes a total. The term 'simplified-approach' distinguishes it from other ECL tools like lifetime_ecl or scenario_weighted_ecl, making the purpose clear and somewhat differentiated.

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 alternatives. The phrase 'simplified-approach' implies a specific context, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent without decision support.

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