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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: 'Read-only, no auth', and the important scoping rule that capital figures are never published and only percentages and index levels are returned. This supplements the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint without contradicting them.

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 well-organized: core purpose and fields first, followed by constraints and a workflow pointer. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every clause carries useful information.

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 simple list endpoint with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers returned fields, data restrictions, auth expectations, and the natural next step to get_fund. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, including limit defaults/max and status allowed values. The description repeats the status vocabulary but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Describes a specific action, listing every Tuatara-managed fund as ONE ranked list, and enumerates the exact fields returned. The description also points to get_fund as the follow-up, which helps distinguish it from sibling fund tools.

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 tells the agent to 'Start here' for the fund list and then use get_fund for a single fund, giving a clear workflow. It does not cover when to prefer other sibling fund tools like get_fund_history or get_fund_methodology, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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