get_fund_returns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source, that the payload is plaintext-decodable, and what each granularity returns (benchmark comparison, plus peer ranking/quartile for yearly), but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or result size/pagination.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then presents granularity semantics in a compact line, then a short usage note. No filler; only the parenthetical data-source detail is arguably extraneous.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape reasonably well (benchmark, ranking, quartile) but leaves fund_id semantics, permissions, and failure modes unaddressed.

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 must compensate. It does define the three granularity values (monthly/quarterly/yearly), which the schema leaves as a bare un-enumerated string, but fund_id — the only required parameter — gets no explanation of format or where to obtain 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('查询基金收益序列') and names the upstream data source, so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_fund_performance, which plausibly returns overlapping data.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named, despite siblings like get_fund_performance and get_ranking that could serve similar needs. Usage is only weakly implied by the granularity enumeration and the note about synthesizing a cumulative NAV curve.

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