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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: this is a *request* (not a guarantee the bond will be added) and it requires explicit user consent. It stops short of saying what happens after submission (queued, reviewed, any follow-up), which would complete the behavioral picture.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what, gating condition, input source), with the purpose front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core call path is clear for a 2-parameter tool. The remaining gaps are the undefined 'note' parameter and the missing contrast with bondterminal_report_gap.

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 compensate. It does explain isin's provenance ('from a bondterminal_get_bonds miss'), but the second parameter 'note' is never mentioned — its purpose and the 300-character limit are only visible in the raw 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 ('Request that BondTerminal add a bond') and scopes it with the negative qualifier 'a bond it does not cover yet', which separates it from coverage-query siblings like bondterminal_get_bonds. An agent can identify the action without opening the 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 a hard precondition ('Call only after the user agreed') and a concrete trigger ('the ISIN from a bondterminal_get_bonds miss'), which is stronger than most definitions. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling bondterminal_report_gap, which an agent could plausibly confuse with requesting a missing bond.

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