UBPR-Equivalent Ratio Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: the caveat that ratios are 'UBPR-equivalent, not official FFIEC UBPR output' and the disclosure that it is an analytical tool based on public financial data. It also previews the output categories. No contradiction with annotations — 'Compute...analysis' aligns with read-only, non-destructive semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured bulleted list of outputs and a one-line note. Efficient overall, though there is some redundancy: the opening 'Includes summary ratios (ROA, ROE, NIM, efficiency), loan mix, capital adequacy, liquidity metrics, and year-over-year growth rates' partially repeats the more detailed bullet list below it. Minor waste but the added specificity justifies most of the length.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value structure is covered there; the description still usefully enumerates the output categories. Both parameters are documented in the schema. The main missing element is usage guidance relative to siblings (also reflected in the usage_guidelines score), but for the analytical scope, data-source caveats, and output preview, the description is largely complete. The default repdte behavior is already in the schema.

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% — both 'cert' (FDIC Certificate Number) and 'repdte' (Report date YYYYMMDD, defaults to most recent quarter) are documented in the schema. Per baseline, when the schema carries full weight, a 3 is appropriate. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or the default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Compute') and a well-defined resource ('UBPR-equivalent ratio analysis for an FDIC-insured institution'). The description enumerates exact ratio categories (ROA, ROE, NIM, loan mix, capital adequacy, liquidity, growth), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like fdic_analyze_bank_health or fdic_peer_group_analysis. The explicit 'UBPR-equivalent, not official FFIEC UBPR output' qualifier sharpens the scope.

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 states what the tool produces but gives no guidance on when to choose it over the ~26 sibling analytical tools (e.g., fdic_analyze_bank_health, fdic_analyze_funding_profile, fdic_analyze_credit_concentration). The note that it's 'analytical' and based on 'public financial data' implies context but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction, nor names any alternative. Given the crowded sibling space, this is a real gap.

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