Search Mutual Fund

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

With no annotations present the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real API limitation: long search strings are unsupported. It omits other traits an agent might need (result limits, auth requirements, what happens when nothing matches), so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and then the critical constraint in emphasis. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one parameter is fully documented. For a single-parameter search tool the description is nearly sufficient, with only result-count or match behavior left unstated.

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 100% and the schema already documents the query parameter with examples, but the description adds a quantified rule ('1-3 words') and flags the constraint as IMPORTANT, sharpening the schema's vaguer 'short keyword' wording. It goes modestly beyond the schema rather than merely restating it.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (search mutual funds) with the searchable dimension (name or keyword). No sibling tool covers mutual funds, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit; nothing in the description rules out confusion with search_industry, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a strong how-to constraint (use 1-3 word keywords, not full fund names) that shapes usage, but never states when this tool should be chosen over a sibling or what the results are suited for. Usage is implied by the resource rather than framed as guidance.

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