get_bond_details

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

The annotations already establish read-only behavior via readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the content domains (pricing, ratings, coupon schedule, maturity, call information) and the symbol format requirement. It does not contradict the annotations and provides context beyond what annotations convey, though it omits edge-case behavior like not-found handling.

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 compact and well-structured: a two-sentence overview followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded with purpose and return categories, contains no filler, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 only two parameters (one required), a read-only annotation, and an output schema, this description is fully adequate. It explains both parameters, lists the return categories, and fits within the broader tool context. No critical information is missing.

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 has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It explains symbol format with a concrete example ('912810TM0-BOND') and clarifies that account_id is optional if PUBLIC_COM_ACCOUNT_ID is set. This turns otherwise opaque schema properties into actionable parameter guidance.

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 the verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive details for a single bond.' It also enumerates the specific types of information returned (pricing, ratings, coupon schedule, maturity, call info), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_bonds or get_instrument. The scope ('single bond') and identification method ('by its symbol') are explicit.

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 usage context is clear: this tool is for when you already have a bond symbol and need comprehensive details. It mentions the optional account_id and the environment variable fallback, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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