moex_bond_yields_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the set of returned analytical fields (EFFECTIVEYIELD, DURATION, ZSPREADBP, GSPREADBP), which is genuine output context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, row limits, or CSV side effects.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('bond yield history') before the field list. No filler, though the column enumeration is dense and largely output-oriented.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only annotations covering safety, the description partially compensates by listing returned columns. But it omits usage routing against the many sibling tools and any behavioral notes on the CSV/max_inline_rows mechanics, leaving gaps for a data-export tool.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters (date formats, columns filter, CSV options). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; its field list describes outputs, not inputs. 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 names a specific resource (bond yield history) and enumerates the exact fields returned (TRADEDATE, PRICE, EFFECTIVEYIELD, DURATION, spreads), so an agent knows precisely what this tool produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as moex_history, moex_bondization, or moex_zcyc, which may also touch bond data.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told to prefer this over moex_history for bond yield series, nor are any prerequisites (valid secid, date ordering) stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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