query_bond

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that output is written to a CSV file and lists known limitations (missing YTM, redemption terms, etc.), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or any side effects beyond file writing.

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?

Description is structured: main purpose, kind enumeration, limitations. It's slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 7-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, kinds, and known limitations. It doesn't explain return values (but CSV file output is clear) or error handling. Given schema richness, it's reasonably 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 covers 100% of parameters, but description adds mapping from kind to specific data source names (e.g., bond_china_yield), enriching meaning beyond schema. Also notes mutual exclusivity in schema, reinforcing the semantic value.

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?

States specific resource (China onshore bonds) and enumerates three distinct kinds, making the tool's scope clear. Doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling query_convertible_bond but the name and scope are sufficient for a basic distinction.

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?

Provides per-kind context (what each kind returns) and known limitations, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage by naming data sources but lacks exclusionary criteria or alternative tool references.

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