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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists specific returned fields but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, mention data source, or disclose any limitations. 'Get' implicitly suggests read-only, but richer context would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that is clearly front-loaded with 'Get full details' and includes all necessary information without any filler. No words are wasted.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by listing key return fields. However, the term 'info' is vague, and more detail about the return structure would be beneficial, though not essential given sibling tools for specifics.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (scheme_code) as 'AMFI scheme code', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves full fund details including info, TER, minimum investment, and launch date. This specific verb+resource structure clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_latest_nav, which focus on particular aspects.

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 implies this is the primary tool for a fund overview, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context of sibling tools makes the use case clear, but no exclusions are provided.

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