get_bond_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, yet the description adds crucial interpretive behavior: the POSTED vs COMPUTED distinction, the warning never to report a computed figure as an actual bond, and the instruction to treat 'not documented' as unknown rather than zero. These are exactly the semantics an agent cannot infer from structured fields and prevent materially wrong answers.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the caveats, and each sentence carries real informational weight. Slightly long, but the length is justified by the data-interpretation warnings rather than padding.

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 must characterize the return, and it does: two figures per operator plus summary statistics and FAA financial responsibility data. It omits return shape details like pagination metadata and per-operator fields, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, and the description adds no filtering syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents (operator partial match, orbit_type NGSO/GSO, pagination). The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with domain scope: 'Get FCC surety bond portfolio for satellite operators.' No sibling tool covers bonds or financial obligations, so the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from the rest of the registry.

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 final sentence gives clear trigger conditions ('questions about satellite operator financial obligations, bond compliance, or TPL coverage'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming an exclusion or an alternative sibling, so it is clear context rather than fully explicit routing.

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