get_debt_scheme_performance

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows daily performance, latest NAV, and returns, but omits details like data freshness, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is moderately transparent but leaves gaps.

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 single sentence for purpose and a bullet list for details. All information is relevant and front-loaded, with no fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return value as a dictionary categorized by debt fund type with performance metrics. While not exhaustive, it provides enough context for basic usage. More detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters (input schema is empty with 100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the absence of input is clearly conveyed.

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 daily performance data for open-ended DEBT mutual fund schemes, listing specific fund types (Liquid, Overnight, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_equity_scheme_performance or get_hybrid_scheme_performance.

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 implies usage for debt fund queries by naming the fund category and examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., for equity or hybrid funds) or direct users to alternatives among siblings.

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