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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the core computational logic (discounting face value at yield), which is meaningful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., negative yields), but this is a simple calculation with schema covering compounding and output schema covering 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the comprehensive parameter schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the calculation concept, and the structured fields cover the remaining details. The only minor gap is explicit usage guidance, which is already accounted for in the usage dimension.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description maps 'face value' and 'yield' to faceValue and yieldPct, and 'to today' implicitly refers to years, but adds no new details about compoundingPerYear or default behavior. It meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 states the tool computes the price of a zero-coupon bond by discounting face value at the yield. This explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like 'bond-price' (which likely handles coupon bonds) and 'current-yield'.

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 context of use is implied: when pricing a zero-coupon bond. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., 'for coupon bonds, use bond-price'), nor any exclusions. The name and description make the use case clear, but guidance is not stated.

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