moex_bond_events

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. Beyond that, the description adds only the 'ALL bonds' scope note and says nothing about output format, pagination, or the inline-vs-CSV behavior. It contradicts nothing but also barely enriches the annotation baseline.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded and waste-free. It is appropriately sized for a simple calendar endpoint, though the brevity leaves capability gaps noted elsewhere.

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 and no annotation-derived behavioral detail beyond safety, the description does not explain what an event record contains, how coupons/redemptions/offers are differentiated, or when results spill to CSV. For a six-parameter tool with an inline/CSV threshold, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a clear resource (calendar of coupons/redemptions/offers for ALL bonds) and scope (per period), and distinguishes itself from siblings like moex_bondization and moex_bond_yields_history by being a date-range event calendar. However, it does not name a sibling tool it is not, which caps it below the 5 benchmark.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-NOT-to-use, and no alternative tool named. An agent must infer usage purely from the resource type; sibling routing (e.g. vs moex_bondization) is left unaddressed.

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