get_treasury_yield

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (FRED as the upstream source, percent as the unit) but says nothing about freshness, caching, or failure behavior for an open-world network call.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose and source front-loaded and a useful usage note second. No filler to trim.

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 single-parameter read tool with a default in the schema and no output schema, the description covers source, unit, and default guidance adequately. The main gap is enumeration of valid maturity values, which an agent would need.

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 0% for the single 'maturity' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It mentions '10Y' only as the usual rate, never explains accepted maturity values, format (e.g., '3M', '2Y'), or what happens on unsupported maturities.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (Treasury constant-maturity yield), source (FRED), and unit (percent). It is recognizable against siblings like get_market_data, though it does not explicitly state how it differs from the broader market-data tool.

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?

'10Y is the usual DCF risk-free rate' gives implied usage context for the default case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no explanation of when a different maturity would be appropriate.

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