surety__price_bond

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

The description declares the tool is pure (never mutates bond state), deterministic, and returns a quote_hash for verification. With no annotations provided, it provides adequate behavioral disclosure, though it omits authentication or rate limit details.

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 concise, front-loaded with a domain tag, and packs significant information into a single sentence. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core logic and output (quote_hash) but lacks details on return format, error handling, and edge cases. It suffices for basic understanding but not full context.

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 description explains how attestations, successful deliveries, completed bonds, and slashes affect the quote, adding context beyond the bare parameter names. However, it does not mention the 'slashed_minor' parameter, leaving a small gap in coverage.

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 underwrites a surety bond by providing a deterministic actuarial premium quote based on counterparty track record. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being pure (read-only) and never mutating 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 getting a premium quote before posting a bond, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like surety__post_bond or surety__slash_bond. No when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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