bond_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the calculation purpose without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects, performance considerations, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 with a single sentence: '计算债券的理论价格'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 the complexity of a financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral traits, and expected outputs, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any semantic information about the parameters (e.g., what 'face_value' or 'coupon_rate' represent, their units, or typical ranges). This forces the agent to guess parameter meanings, which is inadequate given the low coverage.

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's purpose: '计算债券的理论价格' (calculate the theoretical price of a bond). It specifies the verb '计算' (calculate) and the resource '债券的理论价格' (theoretical price of a bond), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'net_present_value' or 'present_value_annuity', which might also involve financial calculations, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'net_present_value' and 'present_value_annuity' that could overlap in financial contexts, the agent is left without direction on tool selection.

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