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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: billing units (5 read units per bond), hard limits (10 bonds per call, 60 distinct term sheets/day per account), and the critical semantics that non-confirmed states (not_confirmed/not_found/does_not_apply/not_read) 'never mean no'. That last point is essential to avoid misinterpreting results.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and constraints, and every sentence carries information (billing, sibling routing, quote discipline). It is dense but not padded; the list of term categories is the only mildly verbose part.

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, billed, multi-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers authorization (Pro), cost, limits, result-state meanings, citation expectations, and sibling disambiguation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning: fields and topics narrow the answer, topics omitted returns every topic, and combined they intersect (echoed by schema). It also clarifies the 10-bond cap on identifiers, but doesn't illustrate identifier formats beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Return the terms of up to 10 bonds as read from their offering documents') and enumerates the term categories covered. It also explicitly contrasts itself with sibling bondterminal_get_bonds, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: 'Ask for topics or single fields to keep the answer short,' names the alternative (bondterminal_get_bonds) and says what to do when the two disagree ('show both'). Also states 'Pro only' as a precondition.

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