search_bonds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. It is minimally adequate as 'Search' suggests no side effects.

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?

Two sentences: one declarative statement of function and one with use cases and an example. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information. Highly concise.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, typical use cases, and an example query. It does not describe the return format, but the example implicitly suggests bond results. For a search tool without output schema, this is nearly 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a summary of filters and an example query, but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search bonds by ticker, seniority, yield, spread, and maturity.' It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (bonds), and distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_bond or search_pricing by focusing on bond screening with multiple filters.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'Use for yield hunting, finding high-yield opportunities, or analyzing maturity walls.' It provides an example. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings like search_pricing or search_documents.

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