Compare the two bond routes

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful constraint—'under the canonical published bond'—but does not disclose further behavioral details such as output limitations or the meaning of 'preserved compatibility.'

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'Preserved compatibility tool' is somewhat redundant but does not significantly detract from clarity.

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 having 12 parameters with many enums, the description gives no contextual guidance on how to populate them or what the comparison yields. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the tool's purpose is still too vague for such a complex parameter set.

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 does not explain any of the 12 parameters. It mentions only 'direct route' and 'approved pool,' which map vaguely to bitcoinPathPreference, but fails to clarify required inputs like goal, liquidityNeed, or keyControlPreference.

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 compares the direct route and approved pool under the canonical published bond, with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bond_participation_routes or check_compatibility, which do not perform a direct comparison.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Preserved compatibility tool' hints at legacy status but does not explicitly explain when to prefer or avoid it, nor does it mention any other tools.

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