get_fund_industry_holding

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions return type (pd.DataFrame) and that 'toon' format is optimized for AI, but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. It is a read operation, but no further constraints are given.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose due to Python docstring formatting.

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, the description mentions return type (DataFrame) but not its columns or index. It explains parameters adequately but lacks details on the returned data structure, which is important for agent use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: symbol as 'symbol of the fund' and output_format with enum values and note that 'toon' is optimized for AI. It adds meaning beyond schema but is minimal.

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 it gets industry holding of a fund, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_fund_asset_holding and get_fund_top_holding. However, the term 'industry holding' could be more specific (e.g., sector 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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