get_treasury_yield_curve

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the return format (all maturities, spreads, inversion flag), the null handling for unpublished tenors, the non-publication day fallback to available range, and explicitly disambiguates the rate type (nominal CMT, not real or zero-coupon). This is comprehensive and leaves no critical behavior unstated.

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 informative and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding important details about null handling and rate type. The conversational aside ('because the real question...') adds character but is slightly tangential; still, the overall length is acceptable and every substantive detail earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies all return components, edge cases, and data semantics. An agent can accurately predict the tool's behavior and results without needing additional context. There are no missing elements.

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 parameter description already explains the format, default, and non-publication behavior. The tool description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not need to compensate because the schema is already explicit.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieves the US Treasury par yield curve for a given business day, enumerating the exact outputs (all constant-maturity rates, spreads, inversion flag). It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with crypto, geolocation, or other domains, so there is no ambiguity.

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?

While there are no closely related sibling tools to contrast, the description gives explicit usage context: it specifies the date parameter behavior, explains that unpublished tenors are null rather than zero, and clarifies that these are nominal CMT rates, not real or zero-coupon yields. This effectively tells an agent when and how to interpret the results, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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