search_fund

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

The description discloses partial match behavior and output format options, including that 'toon' is optimized for AI. However, there is an inconsistency: the Returns section says 'pd.DataFrame' but output_format allows 'json' and 'toon', which contradicts the stated return type. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden but fails to fully clarify 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?

The description is concise with a clear one-line purpose and structured Args/Returns. However, the inconsistency between the Returns claim and output_format options slightly detracts from clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 search tool, the description covers search behavior and parameters. It lacks explanation of what happens with no results, the meaning of different output formats beyond 'optimized for AI', and how results relate to sibling fund tools. No output schema exists, so more detail would help.

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 description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: keyword includes 'partial match for fund name' and output_format notes the default and that 'toon' is optimized for AI. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Search fund by name from stock market', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_all_funds' (which lists all funds without search) and other fund data retrieval tools that focus on specific aspects like holdings or NAV.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools for related tasks. The user is left to infer usage from context.

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