get_available_schemes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It details the input (partial/full AMC name, case-insensitive) and output format (dictionary mapping codes to names). However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or potential response size for broad inputs.

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 (two sentences) and well-structured: purpose, parameter explanation with examples, and return description. No superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient information for correct usage. It could optionally mention behavior for unknown AMC names, but this is not a critical gap.

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 0% (only name and type), but the description adds essential semantics: it explains the parameter accepts partial/full AMC names, is case-insensitive, and provides concrete examples. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 it retrieves mutual fund schemes for a specific AMC, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scheme_codes which are not AMC-specific.

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 clear context for when to use (when querying schemes by AMC) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_scheme_codes or search_scheme_by_name. It remains effective for its purpose.

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