get_scheme_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields but says nothing about lookup failure behavior, whether the scheme code must be an AMFI code, authentication, or any other operational trait.

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 short and front-loads the useful field list, but as an unpunctuated fragment it is under-structured rather than optimally concise. It could be a single clear sentence with a verb and lookup context.

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 exact return structure need not be explained. For a simple one-parameter read tool, the field list gives minimal context, but the missing verb, parameter format, and usage guidance leave it only barely complete.

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% and the sole parameter, scheme_code, has no schema description. The phrase 'for a scheme code' only restates the parameter name; it does not clarify format, source, or expected values.

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 lists the specific metadata fields returned (fund house, scheme type, category, start date) for a scheme code, which distinguishes it from price-oriented siblings like get_scheme_quote. However, it is a sentence fragment with no verb, so the action is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_schemes or get_scheme_quote. The field list implies a metadata lookup, but no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are provided.

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