TreasuryOS

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the warning threshold logic ('within 10% of threshold'), explaining how warnings differ from breaches. Missing side effects, idempotency, or data persistence details.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and scope; second sentence details specific behaviors (breaches vs warnings). Perfectly 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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter monitoring tool. Explains scope (across facilities) and logic (10% buffer). Would benefit from noting whether this requires pre-existing facility setup or returns real-time vs cached data.

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?

Zero parameters baseline score applies. Schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Description wisely avoids inventing parameter documentation where none exist, focusing instead on behavioral 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?

Clear specific verb ('Monitor') + resource ('debt covenant compliance'). Explicitly scopes to 'credit facilities' and distinguishes from sibling 'assess_credit_position' by focusing specifically on covenant thresholds rather than general creditworthiness.

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?

Describes what the tool does (flags breaches/warnings), implying use for compliance checking, but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. Does not clarify relationship to 'assess_credit_position' or prerequisites like configured facilities.

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