get_bank_gap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the nature of the operation ('Estimate' suggests computation), the time horizon ('annual'), and the dependency on 'current' index assumptions. However, it does not say whether the tool is read-only, how the estimate is calculated, what happens for a zero balance, or what the output format is. Adequate but shallow for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single 18-word sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the qualifier 'using the current Bank Gap Index assumptions' earns its place by grounding the estimation basis. Every word contributes.

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 simple 2-param tool with no required parameters, the core is covered. But there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should hint at the return value and clarify how this differs from get_bank_gap_index; it does neither. The meaning of 'savings gap' is left undefined, which is a real gap for agent comprehension.

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 only 50% (balance lacks any schema description), so the description must compensate. It does add partial meaning by identifying balance as the subject of the estimation and implies bank is peripheral context. But it does not clarify balance units, the meaning of the gap, or how bank influences the estimate beyond the schema's 'user-facing context' note.

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 ('Estimate') with a clear resource ('annual savings gap for a balance') and a distinguishing qualifier ('using the current Bank Gap Index assumptions'). This separates it from get_bank_gap_index (which likely returns the index data itself) and compare_switch_savings (comparison-focused). However, it never defines what a 'savings gap' is or what the returned value represents, leaving mild ambiguity.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'current Bank Gap Index assumptions' implies a contrast with get_bank_gap_index, but that is left to inference. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools, so the agent must guess which tool fits a given task.

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