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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output includes fund count and alphabetical sorting, but it is ambiguous whether 'with fund count' means every AMC has a count or only AMCs that have funds. It also does not mention edge cases like empty lists or whether this operation is read-only, though 'List' implies so.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the additional details (fund count, sort order) are relevant and concise.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return information (AMCs, fund count, alphabetical order). However, the ambiguity about 'with fund count' slightly reduces completeness; a clearer phrasing like 'including the number of funds for each AMC' would be ideal.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% schema coverage). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter information and none is needed.

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 a specific verb ('List') plus a clear resource ('all AMCs') and unique scope ('with fund count, sorted alphabetically'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories or list_funds_in_category.

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: if you need a list of all AMCs, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, which would be a 5. There is no stated exclusion or contrast with sibling list tools.

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