surety__bond_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a current record, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, lack of side effects, error conditions, or authorization needs. The mention of 'ruling-gated slashing' adds domain context but not tool behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key information. The bracketed prefix adds domain context, which may be helpful but is slightly redundant. Overall, every sentence earns its place, but the prefix could be merged or removed.

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 tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the return fields (state, balances, claims, audit head). However, it lacks details on output format, possible errors, or whether the bond record includes additional metadata, making it minimally 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the bond_id parameter beyond its name. The agent receives no guidance on the format, source, or constraints of bond_id, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 retrieves the current record for a bond, including state, balances, claims, and audit head. It specifies the resource ('bond') and the action ('current record'), effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like surety__list_bonds or surety__file_claim.

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 such as surety__list_bonds or surety__price_bond. It does not indicate prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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