Keel methodology and thresholds

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the thresholds are chosen rather than calibrated against incidents, and the agent should mention that when explaining an asset's band. This is useful domain context that affects how the tool's output should be interpreted.

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, front-loaded with the contents of the response and followed by an instruction on how to use the thresholds when explaining bands. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is more usage guidance than tool description, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned. It does so by naming the methodology version, every threshold, and the documentation link, and it adds interpretive context about thresholds being chosen. A slightly clearer enumeration of return structure would make it complete at a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and schema coverage is 100% with an empty object schema.

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 resource: the Keel methodology version, every threshold used to fire flags and size collateral, and a documentation link. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_asset_risk and check_collateral_size by being the source of thresholds rather than an application of them, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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?

It provides implied usage guidance by saying to mention the chosen-not-calibrated thresholds 'when explaining why an asset got its band,' which tells the agent one context for using the output. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_asset_risk, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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