search_scheme_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the return format (dictionary mapping scheme codes to names) and implies no side effects (search operation). It is transparent about the tool's behavior, though it could mention that it is read-only.

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 three sentences plus an Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides essential return information ('Dictionary mapping scheme codes to matching scheme names'). For a search tool with two simple parameters, this is complete and sufficient.

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?

The schema lacks descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining 'query' (keyword to search in scheme names with examples) and 'amc_name' (optional AMC filter with examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for mutual fund schemes by name keyword. Optionally filter by AMC.' It also specifies the use case: 'Use this when you know a fund name but not its scheme code.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely require scheme codes.

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 explicitly guides when to use the tool: 'Use this when you know a fund name but not its scheme code.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.

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