UBPR-Equivalent Ratio Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying that ratios are UBPR-equivalent (not official FFIEC UBPR), computed from Call Report data, and based on public financial data. It also lists the output structure. This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a main sentence followed by bullet points listing ratio categories. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but overall effective.

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 complexity of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and the detailed list of output categories in the description, the description is complete. It covers the main use case and return structure adequately.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds the default behavior for repdte ('defaults to most recent quarter'), which is helpful. This justifies a baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Compute UBPR-equivalent ratio analysis for an FDIC-insured institution' and enumerates specific ratio categories (summary, loan mix, capital adequacy, liquidity, growth). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like credit concentration or funding profile.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies the tool is for a comprehensive ratio analysis, but does not compare to siblings like fdic_analyze_bank_health or fdic_peer_group_analysis. The context of UBPR-equivalency helps somewhat.

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