Government bond auctions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are published about a day after the auction, values are in trillion rials (هزار میلیارد ریال), and each record breaks out offered, ordered, accepted, YTM and sold amounts plus auction/year totals. It does not discuss history depth beyond the limit parameter or how missing/unsold auctions are represented, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then payload detail, then routing and latency. Dense but every sentence carries information; the Persian parentheticals aid interpretation rather than padding.

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 two-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned field-by-field, the units, the reporting lag, and the sibling for announcement text. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so `year` (Jalali, 1399-1500, defaults to current year) and `limit` (1-6 newest results, default 2) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as what `year` does to the year totals it mentions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the results of the Central Bank's weekly government Islamic securities (sukuk) auctions') and immediately enumerates the payload ('sold amounts and yields'). It also routes a different need to the sibling cb_news_item, so an agent can separate it from the news tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('government borrowing and the yield level of public sukuk') and gives the alternative for announcement text ('call cb_news_item with the `id`'). This is the when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else split that makes sibling selection unambiguous.

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