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

The description merely restates what the tool does without adding any behavioral context. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, data freshness, or other traits, but it discloses none. An agent cannot tell if this is read-only (though 'get' implies it), whether it returns historical data, or if any special conditions apply.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification; still, for a simple read operation, the brevity is acceptable and efficient.

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 simple with a well-described schema, but the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'event series' beyond the schema example, nor does it explain how this tool relates to the sibling get_yield_curves. With no output schema or annotations, the agent has little guidance on expected return shape or edge cases, making this less than minimally viable.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters: 'event' is explained with an example, and 'venue' is described as a disambiguator. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not attempt to, which is acceptable. No extra meaning is added beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 states it provides a single yield curve for one event series, using a specific noun phrase that identifies both the resource (yield curve) and the scope (one event series). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_yield_curves, which likely handles multiple curves. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The singular 'single' versus the sibling's plural 'curves' implies a distinction, but the description never explicitly states that get_yield_curves should be used for multiple event series or that this tool is for a specific event. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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