债务可持续性评估

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: it 'directly outputs' a repayment-capability verdict based on the listed metrics. It does not explain methodology, caveats, or data sources, so it is not fully transparent.

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 entire description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and expected result, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, and expected output adequately. Nothing essential for invoking or interpreting the tool is missing.

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 single 'countries' parameter is fully documented in the JSON schema, including country codes, default value, and comma-separated format. The description only echoes this with '各国' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific operation: comparing debt sustainability across countries using clearly listed indicators (government debt/GDP, FX reserve adequacy, inflation), and defines the expected output as a direct solvency verdict. This distinguishes it from raw macro-data tools in the sibling 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?

The use case is implicit but clear: use this tool when the user asks for cross-country debt sustainability comparison or who can/cannot repay debt. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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