bond_duration

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 states the tool calculates Macaulay duration, which implies a read-only computation, but doesn't clarify if it's a pure function, what the output format is, error handling, or any performance considerations. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 (financial calculation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the calculation's context, output format, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 50% (only 'cashFlows' has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'cashFlows' or 'yieldRate' represent in the context of Macaulay duration, their units, or valid ranges. With partial schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 purpose: 'Calculate Macaulay duration for bond'. It specifies the verb ('Calculate') and the resource/calculation type ('Macaulay duration for bond'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_bond_price' or other bond-related calculations, which would require a 5.

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. There are many sibling tools for financial calculations (e.g., 'calculate_bond_price', 'calculate_irr'), but no indication of when Macaulay duration is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be better suited.

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