get_convertible_bond_value

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate these. The description adds that it provides bond price, premium, and YTM, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short and efficient: a one-line purpose, a strategy tag, an example, and a parameter definition. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately explains the input format and the contents of the analysis (bond price, premium, YTM). Combined with annotations, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter symbol. The description adds a clear description with format and example ('Convertible bond symbol (e.g. 113527.BOND)'), providing meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Symbol' title.

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 action (get) and resource (convertible bond value analysis), listing specific outputs like bond price, premium, and YTM. It distinguishes from siblings which are other financial data tools.

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 includes a strategy tag directing direct invocation with convertible bond symbol and provides an example. It clearly indicates the context for use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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