search_funds

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 shape of the result (fund_id, company, manager, dates, returns, drawdown), which compensates for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy name), pagination limits, or auth requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and return summary, the second handles tool routing. No redundant phrases and nothing that fails to earn 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?

For a simple two-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and next-step routing, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only missing piece is pagination/limit behavior implied by page_size.

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%, so the description must compensate. '按名称搜索' gives implicit meaning to the required query parameter, but page_size is never explained and no format/syntax guidance is added. Query being intuitive by name keeps this from dropping lower.

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 ('按名称搜索私募基金' – search private funds by name) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent immediately knows the operation. It also distinguishes itself from get_fund by assigning detail retrieval to that sibling, making the boundary clear without opening a schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool ("后续用 get_fund 查详情"), giving clear context for when this tool's role ends and another begins. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over search_companies or other siblings, so no hard exclusions are provided.

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