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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: it states no auth is required, constituents are only shown where disclosed, short books are aliased, and open M&A baskets are withheld. This gives the agent accurate expectations about data availability and access.

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 dense but efficiently structured: the core purpose and return contents come first, followed by symbol guidance and access notes. Every clause provides useful information without repetition or 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, data caveats, symbol requirements, and auth status. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable detail by specifying the symbol source (list_funds), the allowed families (AIB symbols, MA-RIPPLE, FTA-CRYPTOS, FTA-STOCKS, EVENT-CARD), which goes beyond the schema's one-line parameter description.

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: retrieving one fund's full public detail. It enumerates the exact fields returned and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_funds and get_fund_history by focusing on a single fund's current detail rather than a list or history.

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?

Clear context is provided: call this to get one fund's details, and use list_funds to obtain the symbol. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_fund_history or get_fund_methodology, but the scope is obvious enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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