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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the output metrics and does not mention authentication requirements, response format, or any side effects. Since it's a 'get' operation, the risk is low, but the description still lacks explicit context such as whether it returns historical data or current values.

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 lists the metrics, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get' and the resource.

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 that the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the main purpose but lacks details about return structure, time horizon, or how the metrics are computed. It's adequate for a simple query but not fully complete.

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 only parameter, scheme_code, is fully described in the schema as 'AMFI scheme code' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get risk-adjusted metrics for a fund' and lists specific metrics (Sharpe, Sortino, max drawdown, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trailing_returns. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tool or explain how it differs from get_fund, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_trailing_returns or get_fund. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the tool name.

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