corridor_bankability_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so well: it discloses that missing financial data is rejected, that human review is mandatory, that there is no lender approval or hydrological verification, and that output is a Markdown memo and JSON schedule with no Excel/PDF. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for this tool the limitations are clearly stated.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then tightly lists constraints and outputs. Each sentence conveys distinct information, though the final sentence is slightly dense. Overall efficient.

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 an 8-parameter financial screen with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, data prerequisites, human-review limitation, and output artifacts. It does not fully clarify the default (non-paid) return value or the exact screening logic, but it provides enough context to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description only alludes to 'supplied financial figures' and 'internal DSCR/leverage thresholds', adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific domain and action: an illustrative corridor project finance screen using supplied figures and internal thresholds. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name any sibling tools to differentiate from, so it earns a 4.

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?

Provides some usage context ('illustrative', mandatory human review) and a prerequisite (missing data rejected). However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives like middle_corridor_deal_risk or pre_action_check, so it remains implied rather than explicit.

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