get_bond_portfolio

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'Get' and describing the data returned. It adds valuable behavioral context by listing specific data categories (bond amounts, releases, summary statistics, FAA data), going beyond the schema annotations.

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, efficiently covering purpose, content, and usage guidance. No wasted words; information is front-loaded with the core action and regulation first.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return data: bond amounts, releases, operator details, summary statistics, and FAA financial responsibility. This is complete for a read-only data retrieval tool with no nested objects.

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 coverage is 100% with all 5 parameters described. The description does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., it mentions 'operator' and 'orbit_type' indirectly but not explicitly). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.

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 portfolio data for satellite operators, referencing the specific regulation 47 CFR 25.165. It details what is shown (bond amounts, releases, operator details, summary stats, FAA data) and differentiates it from siblings, all of which are other search/retrieval tools not focused on bonds.

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 states 'Use for questions about satellite operator financial obligations, bond compliance, or TPL coverage,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or cite alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the diverse sibling set.

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