surety__bond_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a 'current record' with specific fields, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any authentication, rate limits, or 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?

The description is a single sentence preceded by a bracketed domain prefix. It is front-loaded with essential information, but the prefix '[surety — bonding + ruling-gated slashing (risk transfer)]' adds extraneous detail that may not be immediately helpful for tool selection.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields. It does not mention pagination, error conditions, or idempotency, but for this use case the information is sufficient to understand the tool's output.

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 only parameter 'bond_id' is self-explanatory by its name. The schema provides no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not add any extra context about format, examples, or constraints. Baseline score is appropriate given the single, clear parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the 'current record for a bond' with fields like state, balances, claims, audit head. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'surety__list_bonds' (which lists multiple bonds) and 'surety__activate_bond' (which modifies bond state).

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 usage for retrieving a bond's status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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