RiskModels Mutual Fund

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: the exact return shape { snapshot, holdings }, the backing endpoints, that holdings reflect the latest N-PORT filing while metrics use end-of-day prices, and the pricing model ($0.05, plus $0.02 with holdings). For a tool with no output schema, this is rich disclosure.

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 long but front-loaded: usage and exclusions come first, then return structure, then cost. Every clause carries information (endpoints, refresh semantics, pricing), though the parenthetical endpoint detail is dense enough that a tighter phrasing could reduce length without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema and a 2-parameter surface, the description still fully specifies what is returned (snapshot contents, holdings contents, their sources and ranking) plus freshness and cost. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral consequence of holdings_limit ('holdings, only when holdings_limit is set'), including that it triggers a separate endpoint and an extra $0.02 cost, which the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a US mutual fund's profile, return decomposition, hedge ratios, style-box ranks, and optionally holdings). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming riskmodels_search and riskmodels_get_benchmark_fit as the tools for adjacent tasks, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Leads with 'Use when you want...' and then states two explicit exclusions with the alternative tools to use instead (finding the bw_fund_id, comparing with a benchmark). This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at full strength.

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