Bond, sukuk and treasury bill yields

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: YTM is annualised percent computed from each paper's last trade, so `last_trade` must be checked for staleness, and never-traded papers simply have no YTM. It also states price units in rial with typical 1,000,000 face value. Only pagination/row-cap behavior beyond the schema's limit note is 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?

Front-loaded one-sentence summary followed by caveats and routing; nearly every sentence carries information. The middle paragraph is dense with parentheticals, but nothing is filler.

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 10-parameter, fully documented filter/sort tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: field meanings (last price, maturity, YTM), the staleness trap, the missing-YTM edge case, and cross-tool enrichment paths. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum/default descriptions already explain kind, YTM bounds, sort, and Jalali date format, so the schema carries the load. The description adds unit context (YTM annualised percent, price in rial, face value 1,000,000) that the schema lacks, but nothing parameter-specific beyond that.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: list fixed-income papers on Fara Bourse with last price, maturity and YTM, filtered and ranked. It also anchors itself to a concrete site table ("محاسبه بازده اوراق") and names the sibling tools it hands off to (ifb_instrument, ifb_quote), so an agent can place it precisely among the ifb_* family.

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?

Gives two concrete question shapes it answers ("best yield for a bill maturing before X", "which sukuk mature in 1406") and explicit follow-up routing to ifb_instrument for coupons/issuer and ifb_quote for the live book. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from ifb_yield_curve or ifb_sukuk_flows, which are the closest conceptual alternatives.

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