get_fund_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well on failure modes: managers and TER are 'not yet available in this build and are reported as unavailable, never fabricated', and mandate is returned as verbatim SID excerpts with page numbers rather than parsed fields. It omits auth/permission needs, result size limits, and pagination 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then sections, then behavioral caveats — a sensible ordering. The mandate sentence is long and carries an editorial aside ('confident nonsense'), but each sentence conveys real information.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers domain semantics (mandate handling, unavailable managers/TER) but leaves the return shape, as_of format, provenance options and pagination unexplained. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 the description must compensate, and it does so only for one parameter: it enumerates the valid `sections` values, information the schema lacks entirely. `as_of`, `provenance` (what values besides 'compact'?) and the required `scheme_ids` receive no explanation at all.

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 names the resource (fund profile) and enumerates its scope: identity, mandate excerpts, benchmark, costs, managers, documents. The phrase 'Static/slow-moving' implicitly separates it from the dynamic siblings get_fund_performance and get_fund_portfolio, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'static/slow-moving' framing tells the agent this is the reference-data lookup, and the mandate note hints that document retrieval (get_document) is the right path for investment philosophy. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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