moex_bondization

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 useful context about the returned structure (e.g. value in rubles, None when undetermined, valueprc as percent), but discloses nothing about sourcing, pagination, or limitations beyond that. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates return fields with their types. No wasted words, though the parenthetical detail is tightly packed.

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, the description usefully documents the three returned collections and their key fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is the absence of usage/routing context against the overlapping moex_bond_events sibling.

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 80%, with columns, filename, save_csv, and max_inline_rows all documented in the schema; only secid is undocumented but self-evident. The description adds no parameter detail at all, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 the resource clearly ('График платежей облигации' — bond payment schedule) and enumerates what it returns (coupons, amortizations, offers). It is distinguishable as a bondization/schedule fetch, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling moex_bond_events, which plausibly overlaps with offers/amortizations. Clear resource, no sibling differentiation.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as moex_bond_events or moex_security. The agent must infer that this fetches a payment schedule purely from the resource name.

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