calculate_bond_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about computational behavior, error handling, assumptions (e.g., clean price vs. dirty price), or output format. For a financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse while conveying the essential function.

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 financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the calculation method, output format, assumptions, or typical use context. The combination of incomplete parameter documentation and missing behavioral information creates significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 60%, with 3 of 5 parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning 'yield and terms' generally. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, typical values, or calculation methodology. The baseline is appropriate given moderate schema coverage, but the description doesn't compensate for the 40% coverage gap.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'bond price', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bond_duration' by focusing on price calculation rather than duration metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other calculation tools like 'calculate_npv' or 'calculate_irr' beyond the bond focus.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'bond_duration' for related calculations or other financial calculation tools. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this calculation would be appropriate versus other bond analysis methods.

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