get_bond_portfolio

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical semantic behavior: the POSTED bond is document-sourced and often absent, while the COMPUTED 47 CFR 25.165 liability is Orbit Sentinel's own arithmetic and must not be reported as an actual bond. It also warns that 'not documented' means unknown, not zero, and notes that summary statistics and FAA financial responsibility data are returned.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and immediately follows with the most important caveat about posted versus computed figures. Every sentence adds useful information, including the return-summary note and usage context, with no filler.

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?

For a complex financial data tool with no output schema, the description covers the key semantic hazards, extra returned datasets, and intended use cases. It does not fully describe the output structure, pagination, or filter behavior, but the input schema handles the filters and the critical interpretation risks are addressed.

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 five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get FCC surety bond portfolio for satellite operators.' It clearly scopes the tool to bond portfolio data rather than filings, entities, or other sibling resources, and the posted-vs-computed distinction further sharpens its purpose.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance with 'Use for questions about satellite operator financial obligations, bond compliance, or TPL coverage.' It does not name when to use an alternative sibling or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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