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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). Beyond that, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: inactive schemes (closed/matured/merged) are hidden by default, and coverage is limited to AMFI's NAV dataset. It does not mention rate limits or result-ordering behavior, but adds real value over the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is searchable and what comes back, then workflow guidance, then the inactive-scheme caveat and data-scope boundary. Dense but each clause carries information; no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (AMFI scheme code, plan, option, category, latest NAV and NAV date). Combined with the data-scope statement and inactive-scheme rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100% and every parameter (query, plan, option, limit, include_inactive) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the include_inactive default behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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 (search) and resource (Indian mutual fund schemes), enumerates the searchable fields (fund name, AMC, category words), and lists the returned attributes (AMFI scheme code, plan, option, category, NAV, NAV date). It also distinguishes itself from the calculator/comparison siblings by declaring it is the entry point that produces the scheme code the others consume.

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?

'Use this first to get the scheme code the other tools need' gives explicit ordering guidance relative to the sibling tools. It also states the exclusion condition for inactive schemes. It does not name which sibling to use for what, but the routing intent is clear.

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