Get a Bitcoin Staking bond

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

Annotations already provide read-only and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the output is a normalized v2 bond and that reconciliation with on-chain state is performed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that mentions the main action and the distinguishing reconciliation behavior. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or 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?

Given a single parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It might have mentioned potential use cases or failure modes, but for a simple read-only fetch tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 elaborate on bondId, its format, or any constraints. While the parameter name and type are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving a minor but real gap.

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 ('Get') and resource ('normalized v2 bond'), and adds a distinctive functional detail ('reconcile owner claims with on-chain state'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/get/builder 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 implies usage: fetch a single bond and perform reconciliation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_bonds or list_protocol_bonds, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear enough to infer basic use, but explicit guidance on alternatives is absent.

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