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

With no annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral context: rankings are computed from the latest FSC-aligned NAV dataset, and include_metrics affects output columns. This goes beyond basic functionality, though it does not mention read-only behavior or pagination details.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by useful optional details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters) and the absence of parameter documentation, the description leaves many usage aspects unexplained, such as the meaning and purpose of benchmark_slug and risk_free_rate. While an output schema exists, the description would benefit from mentioning advanced metric options or parameter dependencies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains include_metrics and implies metric and period, but it does not clarify many parameters like window, frequency, benchmark_slug, or risk_free_rate, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 ranks funds within UPF/PPF/VPF schemes by a selected metric and period, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rank_benchmarks, which rank benchmarks rather than funds.

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 clear context: it ranks funds within specific schemes, implying its use for fund rankings. Although no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the scope is clear enough to guide an agent away from benchmark-ranking tools.

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