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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returns are percentages for specific periods, which is adequate for a simple getter. It does not detail output structure or any potential side effects, but none are expected for a read-only query.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the return data (periods, percentages) and the schema covers the parameter, making it complete for the complexity level. A slight improvement could be mentioning that it applies to a mutual fund scheme.

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% (scheme_code is described as 'AMFI scheme code'), so the description does not need to add further parameter details. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'trailing returns' and enumerates exact periods (1W, 1M, 3M, 6M, 1Y, 3Y, 5Y), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get_latest_nav or get_holdings.

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 usage when trailing returns are needed, and the specified periods make the intended use clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_metrics or get_fund.

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