Build a bond and route diligence report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds context beyond those: 'claim-sourced' indicates the report is based on claims, 'missing evidence' aligns with open-world behavior, and 'a concrete next action' reveals that the output includes recommendations. This enriches the behavioral model without contradicting 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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently lists the report's facets. It is not verbose, but the long list of comma-separated items makes it slightly harder to parse. A short second sentence or bullet-like structure would improve readability.

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?

Given the complex nested profile object and five parameters, the description is insufficient. It explains what the report covers but not how the tool's inputs drive that content. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the complete absence of parameter semantics is a critical gap for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the absence of parameter documentation. However, it mentions none of the parameters (bondId, network, profile, routeId, bondIndex) nor how they map to the report's content. The nested profile fields are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to construct valid input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('diligence report') and names distinct content areas (bond availability, protocol economics, dependencies, LST risks, fit, missing evidence, next action). It clearly states the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like build_participation_plan or compare_staking_paths.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or indicate whether this should be used before or after other tools. The intended usage context must be inferred from the tool's name and the listed report contents.

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