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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses that NO network call is made, the sub-millisecond latency, the exact response object including status, note, use_instead, query, empty issuers, totalBonds: 0 and error, and warns that the empty lists are the retired shape rather than a search result. It also explains the licensing/redirect cause. Fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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-loads RETIRED (2026-09-13) so the critical fact lands first, and the deprecated-return payload is enumerated precisely rather than vaguely. It is dense and slightly long, but the aside about the wheel and licence-class registries pinning the name is the only part that could be trimmed.

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 inlines the entire returned object shape, confirms no side effects or network access, and gives the exact migration paths. An agent has everything needed to decide not to call it and what to call instead.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is already documented as an issuer name in the schema, so the description only echoes it as part of the return shape. Baseline 3 applies; no additional syntax or format guidance is given or needed.

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 states unambiguously that this is a RETIRED issuer-name bond search over FINRA TRACE that answers no query, and it names the two replacement tools for the two distinct intents (corporate-bond discovery vs. one issuer's maturity schedule). An agent can distinguish it from ol_bond_directory_screen, get_bond_data and get_debt_maturities without opening any 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?

Explicit when-not-to-use (the tool answers no query) plus two named alternatives with the condition that selects each: ol_bond_directory_screen for corporate-bond discovery with issuer/grade/coupon/maturity filters, get_debt_maturities for a single issuer's maturity schedule. Nothing is left to inference.

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