get_bond_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'Shows' and details what is returned, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the description provides adequate but not high transparency.

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 three sentences: first defines purpose, second lists outputs, third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the return values (bond amounts, releases, operator details, summary statistics, FAA data) despite no output schema. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a simple query tool, the coverage is sufficient.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, warranting the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves FCC surety bond portfolios for satellite operators per 47 CFR 25.165. It specifies the resource and domain, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on filings, entities, or satellites.

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 explicitly says 'Use for questions about satellite operator financial obligations, bond compliance, or TPL coverage', providing clear context. While it does not name alternatives, the usage context is well-defined and helps the agent decide when to invoke the tool.

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