treasury_bond_calculator

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

There are no annotations to describe safety or side effects. The description only adds 'DEMO,' which hints that it may be a demonstration or limited in functionality, but it does not disclose what the tool does under the hood, how results are calculated, or any limitations beyond the demo label. With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Kenya Treasury bond yield and return calculator') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('DEMO'). It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and does not repeat any schema or annotation information.

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 calculator with three parameters and no parameter descriptions in either schema or description, the tool is under-specified. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description omits input semantics, usage context, and any explanation of the 'DEMO' status. It barely meets the minimum for a usable description.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (principal_kes, tenor_years, coupon_rate_pct). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about units, defaults, or how they affect the calculation. It completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Kenya Treasury bond yield and return calculator.' It uses a specific verb ('calculator') and resource ('Kenya Treasury bond yield and return'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are informational guides rather than calculators.

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 implies this tool is for calculating yields/returns on Kenyan treasury bonds, and its 'DEMO' label signals a limited-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., comparing with equity guides), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so it only offers implied usage guidance.

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