Build a read-only participation plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is known. The description adds context by stating the tool operates 'without transaction fields' and returns specific outputs (fit, dependencies, missing evidence, diligence actions), which aligns with and slightly extends the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like data sources or permissions, so value beyond annotations is moderate.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and outcomes. Every word contributes ('Select or compare bond routes and return fit, dependencies, missing evidence, and diligence actions without transaction fields'). No wasted language or redundant repetition.

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 a complex nested profile object and many sibling tools, the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not explain the meaning of the output fields, how the profile influences the plan, or when to use this tool over nearby alternatives. The annotations and output schema exist, but for such a complex tool, the description leaves significant gaps in context.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. The three parameters (bondId, profile, routeId) are not explained, and the nested profile object with many fields is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description's mention of 'bond routes' hints at bondId/routeId, but it does not explain the profile or any parameter semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 what the tool does: 'Select or compare bond routes and return fit, dependencies, missing evidence, and diligence actions without transaction fields.' This uses specific verbs and resources, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_bond_participation_routes or compare_staking_paths by focusing on building a participation plan with diligence actions.

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 implies the tool is for selecting or comparing bond routes for a participation plan, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use scenarios. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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