search_schemes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It helpfully states that results include AMFI scheme codes and names and that those codes are inputs to other tools, but it does not describe matching behavior, ambiguity handling, or rate/limit 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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only useful details: search example, return values, and downstream use. There is no wasted text.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, query intent, return values, and downstream usage. The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter and lack of detail about search matching behavior.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the required query parameter well with an example search phrase, but it does not explain the optional limit parameter or its default of 20.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search Indian mutual fund schemes by name. It includes a concrete example and clarifies that results return AMFI scheme codes and names, which distinguishes this lookup tool from the calculation and quote siblings.

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?

It implies usage by saying the returned code should be used with the other tools, which gives downstream context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings such as get_scheme_details or get_scheme_quote, nor does it describe when not to use it.

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