Search mutual fund schemes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful non-obvious facts: the tool requires no authentication, is free to use, and relies on AMFI's daily NAV feed. It does not disclose response format or matching semantics, so it stops short of full 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 two tight sentences. The first sentence immediately states what the tool searches and how, and the second sentence adds high-value context about cost, authentication, and why this tool exists. Every clause 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?

For a low-complexity search tool with only two parameters, the description covers the key operational context: data source, search dimensions, authentication, and cost. There is no output schema to document the return shape, and the description does not state what fields each result returns, which is a modest completeness gap.

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 coverage is only 50%, since 'query' has an example but 'limit' has no descriptive text in the schema. The description compensates partially by specifying that query can match by mutual fund name or AMC, adding meaning beyond the raw parameter names. The limit parameter is still adequately explained by its schema type, default, and bounds.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('every Indian mutual fund scheme'), and two search dimensions ('by name or AMC'). It also identifies the data source (AMFI's daily NAV feed), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_instruments that cover a broader instrument space.

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 gives meaningful context: 'Free, no auth' removes a common access concern, and 'The INDstocks trading API does not cover mutual funds, so this fills that gap' clarifies when this tool is needed. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling mutual-fund tools like get_funds or get_scheme_nav, but the search-by-name/AMC intent is clear.

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