list_treasury_yields

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations - it doesn't mention what treasury yields are, what time periods are available, what format the data returns in, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds little value but doesn't contradict the structured data.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this may be too brief for effective tool selection, it's not wordy or redundant. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration 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 the complexity of 10 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no sibling differentiation, and a financial data retrieval context, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't explain what treasury yields are, how to filter them, or when to use this versus other financial data tools. For a tool with this many parameters and sibling tools, more context is needed.

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?

The description provides zero information about any of the 10 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides parameter names and types without explaining what they mean. The description doesn't compensate at all - it doesn't mention date filtering, limit, sort, order, or params parameters, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of how to use the tool effectively.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Retrieve treasury yield data', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools (like list_aggs, list_dividends, etc.) that also retrieve financial data, leaving the agent to guess when this specific tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 58 sibling tools on the server, many of which retrieve different types of financial data, the agent receives no help in distinguishing when treasury yield data is needed versus other data types. There are no explicit or implied usage contexts provided.

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