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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: identifier aliasing for Argentine sovereigns, the default cable USD pricing lane, quoteBasis reporting, YTM and spread conventions, deprecated oas behavior, response format default, and billing units. These are substantive operational details that help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 contains useful information but is dense and front-loads a niche detail about optionAdjustedSpread and oasStatus before the main purpose. The yield and spread conventions are valuable but packed into long, jargon-heavy sentences that reduce readability.

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 complex financial tool with 0% schema coverage, the description provides substantial context: identifier semantics, pricing lane behavior, yield conventions, spread basis, response format default, and billing. Settlement date semantics and explicit include enum meanings are the main gaps, though the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains identifiers well, including accepted formats and the 10-bond cap, and indirectly maps include to reference, analytics, and cashflows. It does not explain the settlement date parameter or the difference between concise and detailed response formats in detail.

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 clearly states the core action: resolve and compare reference data, live analytics, and optional cashflows for up to 10 bonds. It adds detail about identifier types and batch behavior, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like search_bonds or calculate.

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?

It gives implied usage guidance by saying to send up to 10 identifiers per call instead of one search per issuer, which points toward batch retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus bondterminal_search_bonds, bondterminal_calculate, or bondterminal_get_history.

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