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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. On top of that the description discloses fuzzy normalization behavior, the success payload (entity, fund name, fund_code), the graceful not-found contract (found:false plus closest names), and the upstream source (Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then accepted input forms, then return shape. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 only two simple params and an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, matching tolerance, result shape and failure mode. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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; the description earns above that by explaining that the name may be either the fund or its management company and will match regardless of case, accents or word order — semantics the schema's short 'Fund name, or fund manager name' does not convey. The limit parameter is left to the schema.

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: 'Find a Colombian collective investment fund (FIC) by name', expanded with the Spanish term 'fondo de inversión colectiva'. It clearly delimits the lookup-by-name scope, which implicitly separates it from co_fic_unit_value, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rich input-shape guidance (fund or fiduciaria, any case, accents, word order) and describes the no-match path, which implies when the tool applies. However, it never states when to prefer it over co_fic_unit_value or entity_profile, nor any exclusion.

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