List Bitcoin Staking bonds

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that only 'reviewed' bonds are included, that 'route summaries' are part of the output, and that 'demo records remain excluded by default' — all useful behavioral filtering details. No contradictions with 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List reviewed public bonds with route summaries') and then adds the key default behavior. Every word earns its place with no padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return details are not needed. However, the description omits any explanation of the 'lifecycleStatus' parameter, and while 'route summaries' is mentioned, its meaning is left ambiguous. The tool is simple and annotations help, but the unaddressed parameter leaves a meaningful gap.

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. It only indirectly explains 'includeDemo' via 'demo records remain excluded by default', but it does not mention 'lifecycleStatus' at all, leaving that parameter's meaning and effect entirely unspecified.

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 'List[s] reviewed public bonds with route summaries', specifying a concrete action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'list_protocol_bonds' by emphasizing 'reviewed public' and the inclusion of route summaries.

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 provides clear context: it returns reviewed public bonds, excludes demo records by default, and implies the includeDemo parameter to include demos. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scoping is clear enough for most use cases.

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