search_bonds

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: it returns a page object with content, totalElements, and totalPages, notes that min_maturity_date defaults server-side to today + 14 days, and specifies default page_number, page_size, and sort_direction. This provides context beyond annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or max page size.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary, then a brief note on filter combination and return object, followed by a well-structured list of all 28 parameters with one-line explanations. It is long but every line adds value, and the formatting is consistent and front-loaded with the summary.

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 28 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers all parameters, valid values, defaults, return shape, and the fact that all filters are optional. The output schema exists, so the return structure need not be detailed further. No significant gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples (e.g., issuer_symbol ['AAPL']), valid enum values (e.g., bond_status list), defaults (page_number, page_size, sort_direction, min_maturity_date), and type constraints (numeric string). This is essential for correct invocation and is exemplary given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Filtered, paged search for fixed income (bond) instruments' with a specific verb and resource, making it clear this tool searches bonds with filtering and pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bond_details (which likely fetches a single bond) and get_all_instruments (which may list all instruments).

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 'All filters are optional; combine them to narrow down results' and describes pagination, giving clear context on when to use this tool for finding bonds that meet certain criteria. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, which could improve clarity.

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