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

Far exceeds the readOnlyHint annotation: discloses that only reference data is returned (no price/yield/spread/trade activity, no security identifier), that 'grade' is a source bucket not a credit rating, the limit default/cap, and an explicit provenance/redistribution restriction with caveats surfaced in tool_notes.

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?

Opens with the core purpose and remains information-dense, though the provenance/counsel-memo passage is long. Nearly every sentence carries operational value (formats, caps, restrictions), so the length is mostly justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the return shape (summary, count, total_matching, bonds) and each bond's fields, and covers limits, grade semantics, and provenance for an 8-parameter tool. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description reinforces the grade semantic and limit default/cap, but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Screen) and resource (corporate-bond browse directory) plus the exact filter fields (issuer, grade, coupon, maturity bands). Scope clarifications ('REFERENCE DATA ONLY', 'no security identifier') let an agent distinguish it from search_bonds and get_bond_data without opening schemas.

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?

Conveys implied context (free, first-party only, screen-by-attributes) and a constraint on offset ('used only when no coupon/maturity band is set'), but never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings like search_bonds. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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