get_fund_asset_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the shape of the returned series (per-period size plus period-over-period change), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only status, authentication/token requirements (notable given the set_token and check_auth siblings), units, or date-range limits.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key output content front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably too terse given the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned series is a reasonable core, but the absence of usage context, parameter format, and any behavioral notes (auth, limits) leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description adds no meaning to fund_id — it never states whether it is an internal ID or a fund code, nor its format. With a single parameter that is the sole input, this gap is small but real, and the description does not compensate for it.

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 ('查询基金规模变动序列') and even names the returned content (各期规模与环比变化), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_fund, get_fund_performance, or get_fund_returns.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus get_fund_performance or get_fund_returns, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the selection from the name alone.

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