list_all_funds

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

The description discloses that 'toon' output is optimized for AI and that None fund_type returns all types. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It is transparent about the return format and optional filtering.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes Python type hint syntax (Literal[...]) which is slightly verbose for a tool description but not detrimental.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, the description provides sufficient context. No output schema is needed since return type is described. Missing details like potential result size or pagination but acceptable given tool simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning to all parameters: explains fund_type default behavior and the meaning of 'toon' in output_format. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List all funds from stock market', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_fund' which implies a more targeted query.

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 explains the fund_type parameter behavior and output_format options but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_fund. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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