bankruptcy_risk_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the methodological variant, why it avoids the currency-mismatch issue, the classification zones, and what the model deliberately excludes. This is strong transparency about what the tool does and does not compute.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses its length efficiently. The methodological and exclusionary details are relevant and helpful, though the description is slightly dense with parenthetical asides that could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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 the output schema exists and there is only one required parameter, the description covers everything needed: the assessment type, target market, scoring model, interpretation zones, a key exclusion, and parameter format. No critical operational gaps remain.

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 schema only says 'symbol' is a string, providing 0% coverage. The description compensates by defining it as a ticker symbol and giving concrete formats: 'RELIANCE', 'TCS.NS', or 'TCS.BO'. This materially helps the agent call the tool correctly.

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 verb and resource: 'Assess bankruptcy/distress risk for an NSE/BSE-listed Indian equity.' It also names the exact model (Altman's Z''-score emerging-market variant) and differentiates itself from related tools by explicitly noting it does not include Ohlson's O-score.

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?

The description gives clear context for use: bankruptcy/distress assessment for Indian equities, with detailed zone cutoffs. It also states an explicit exclusion ('Does NOT include Ohlson's O-score'), but it does not name a sibling alternative to choose instead, so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance.

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