get_coupons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Get' and names the resource. It does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects; the verb does imply a non-mutating lookup, but little else.

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 with no wasted words. 'Get coupon payment schedule for a bond' conveys the purpose and object clearly and compacly.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough to select and invoke it. It does not describe the return structure, which is more noticeable because there is no output schema, but the simple input and explicit object keep it minimally 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 100%, and the 'security' parameter is documented with a ticker example. The tool description adds only the bond context and does not materially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get coupon payment schedule for a bond.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dividends or get_bond_yield_curve by identifying a unique bond-specific schedule.

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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer get_coupons is for bond coupon schedules rather than for dividends or yield curves. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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