covenant_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a return type ('Returns a signed covenant bundle') and hints at a read-only check, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, errors, or what 'signed' means. This is a moderate disclosure but has significant gaps.

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 two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous text. Every sentence provides useful information without repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview but leaves out critical details such as the format of labeled rows, the meaning of 'rules', and the exact behavior of the signed bundle. Given the sibling context (audit, verify, diff), the tool's niche is clear but operationally underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaning for 'rule_pack' ('selects a built-in pack such as credit_covenants_basic') and hints that 'rows' need labels, but it does not explain the 'rules' parameter at all. This leaves a key parameter without semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('finance covenant rules'), with useful examples (DSCR, Debt/EBITDA). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'audit_rows' or 'verify_claim', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'over labeled rows' and that 'rule_pack selects a built-in pack', giving some context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's specific role from its name and description.

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