get_fund_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the prerequisite and the time periods, with no information about read vs. write, side effects, rate limits, or return details. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core functionality and constraints, the second provides a critical prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for its simplicity (2 params, simple types). It covers the tool's purpose, parameter constraints, and a prerequisite. However, it could be more complete by describing what the breakdown contains (e.g., percentages, amounts).

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'years' parameter by listing allowed values and implies the 'company_id' comes from resolve_company_ids. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but does not fully explain the purpose or format of company_id.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves capital allocation (fund flow) breakdown with explicit time periods (1, 3, 5, 7, 10 years). It distinguishes from siblings like get_financials and get_shareholding by focusing on fund flow allocation.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Run resolve_company_ids first') but lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_financials or get_shareholding. No comparative usage context is given.

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