corridor_bankability_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well: it reveals the evaluation thresholds and logic, the deliverable structure (Decision Teaser with covenant pass/fail matrix and bottleneck analysis), and a notable side effect — generating an x402 micropayment invoice to unlock the full waterfall model. The only gaps are minor: no statement about read-only behavior or downstream effects of issuing the invoice.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. Each sentence earns its place: scope, evaluation criteria, and deliverable/payment model. It is on the longer side, but every clause carries specific information and there is no filler.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers a lot: evaluation criteria, pass/fail matrix content, bottleneck analysis, and the paid-tier unlock. Remaining gaps are the exact shape/format of the teaser response and the trigger conditions or error states (e.g., behavior when dscr_min falls below the 1.20x floor), but the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by linking parameters to evaluation logic: dscr_min maps to the 1.20x floor, has_sovereign_guarantee to the 1.30x non-sovereign margin, capex_usd_m/ifi_debt_usd_m to the <=80% leverage ceiling, and currency_mismatch to the FX check. This clarifies how inputs are consumed, which the schema field descriptions do not convey.

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 ('Evaluate') and a precise resource ('project finance bankability and IFI covenants' for Trans-Caspian and Middle Corridor projects). It enumerates concrete evaluation dimensions (DSCR floor 1.20x, non-sovereign margin 1.30x, leverage ceiling <=80%, Caspian water-level constraints, FX mismatch), which clearly distinguishes it from financial/risk siblings like middle_corridor_deal_risk or kazakhstan_market_entry_readiness.

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 usage context is implied by the corridor-specific and IFI-covenant framing: an agent can infer this is the screening tool for Middle Corridor bankability assessments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g., when middle_corridor_deal_risk would be the better choice).

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