bond_yield

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or how errors are handled. The description only lists parameters and calculations, leaving behavioral traits underspecified.

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 brief and to the point, using only a few lines. It could be better structured with bullet points or more formal formatting, but it is not verbose. 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 there is an output schema (not shown) and the tool is a simple calculation, the description is adequate. However, it omits details like payment frequency (annual vs semi-annual) or assumptions about yield calculation, which could affect interpretation. It is functional but incomplete for more complex financial contexts.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'face_value — Bond face/par value.'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, helping the agent understand parameter roles.

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 calculates bond yield to maturity and current yield, using a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('bond yield'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like amortization_calc or compound_interest, which are also financial calculations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks prerequisites, context for when it is appropriate, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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