search_mutual_funds

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

With no annotations to convey safety or side effects, the description carries full burden and does so well: it discloses a curated verified-code map for popular funds (handling renames), a live relevance-ranked MFAPI.in dataset for the long tail, and the fact that the returned code must be passed verbatim downstream. This goes beyond the tool name and explains important search behavior.

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?

Three sentences: a one-line purpose, a concise explanation of the data source/behavior, and a workflow directive. No filler; each sentence adds information, with the 'ALWAYS' callout highlighting the critical usage instruction.

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?

No annotations or output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It covers purpose, behavior, data source, and downstream use, and tells the agent that the returned schemeCode should be passed verbatim. However, it does not explicitly describe the full result shape (e.g., that the search returns a list of matches with metadata), leaving a small 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?

The schema covers both params (query, limit) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by giving a concrete query example and explaining that old/popular names are resolved through a verified map to current scheme codes, which clarifies query 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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a search over Indian mutual fund schemes by name, with specific scope (Indian, by name). It distinguishes itself by noting its role as the mandatory first step to obtain a schemeCode and by explaining the curated map for renamed funds, which separates it from downstream data-retrieval siblings.

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS call this first' and instructs passing the returned schemeCode to get_fund_nav or calculate_fund_returns, giving clear when-to-use context. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternative mention, but the 'first' directive makes the workflow unambiguous.

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