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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe calculation. The description adds the unit (years^2) and context of curvature, but does not disclose formula assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency) or edge cases. This adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 is a single tightly written sentence that front-loads the metric name and unit, then defines the concept. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler.

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?

The tool is a simple calculator with an output schema and annotations. The description explains what convexity is, but lacks decision guidance on when to use it versus other bond metrics (e.g., bond-duration or bond-price). This is a gap for an AI agent selecting among siblings, though the low complexity mitigates it.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no additional meaning about how faceValue, couponRatePct, etc., relate to convexity, leaving the schema to carry the weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as calculating bond convexity, defines it as 'the curvature of price with respect to yield,' and notes it is 'used alongside duration,' which distinguishes it from the sibling bond-duration tool. The unit (years^2) is also specified.

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?

The phrase 'used alongside duration' implies complementary use with duration, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide criteria such as 'use when assessing non-linear price risk.' No exclusions are given.

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