venture_debt__warrant_coverage_shares

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

The description discloses the formula, which is the core behavior. However, no annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention potential constraints like unit assumptions (e.g., coverage_pct as decimal vs percentage) or side effects.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the formula and purpose with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks input formatting, edge cases, return value specification, and any operational context for a calculation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. It names the variables in the formula but does not clarify types, units (e.g., loan in currency units, coverage_pct as percentage), or constraints like non-negative values.

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 a clear formula: 'Shares under warrant = (loan x coverage%) / strike price,' which directly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other venture_debt tools by naming the specific output and its components.

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 like venture_debt__payment_schedule or venture_debt__total_cost_of_debt. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for the calculation.

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