lbo_modeling__run_lbo

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

No annotations provided and description adds no behavioral info. Agent must assume it performs an LBO calculation with no insight into side effects, safety, or output.

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?

Extremely terse but under-specified. The description provides no useful information, so it fails to earn its place; it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complex LBO modeling tool with 1 nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover essential context for agent usage.

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% and description does not explain the nested parameter 'a' or its fields (years, debt_pct, etc.). The schema itself lacks descriptions, leaving the agent without any parameter semantics.

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 is just '[lbo-modeling] run_lbo', which hints at running an LBO model but lacks a specific verb-resource statement. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like company_valuation or debt_restructuring.

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. No context about prerequisites, inputs, or when not to use it.

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