economics_fixed_income

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool performs calculations using provided parameters, not fetching external market data. This goes beyond the annotations but doesn't discuss rate limits or auth needs, which are mitigated by the read-only nature.

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 two sentences plus a list. It is concise but the list of indicators is redundant with the input schema enum. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, though it could be more concise by omitting the indicator list.

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 tool's 24 parameters, high schema coverage, and annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains that calculations are performed and no external data is needed. With an output schema existing (though not shown), return values are likely documented elsewhere. The description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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%, but many parameter descriptions are generic ('Value for ...'). The description above the schema adds context about using parameters directly but includes an example with 'face_value' while the schema uses 'par_value', causing slight inconsistency. It does not map parameters to specific indicators, leaving the agent to infer which parameters are relevant for each calculation.

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 'Bond and derivative valuation calculations' and lists specific metrics like bond duration, present value, yield-to-maturity. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that no tickers or countries are needed and that parameters are provided directly.

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 description says 'No tickers or countries needed — provide bond/derivative parameters directly' and lists available indicators. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like quant_models or market_data, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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