analyze_mutual_fund

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It lists what the tool returns (returns, risk metrics, etc.), implying it is a read-only analysis. Does not mention side effects or special behaviors, but given the nature, it's sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a prerequisite instruction and an example. No redundant information.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs. Could add a note about the output structure or the consistency score definition, but it is largely complete.

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 description must add meaning. It mentions the parameter 'scheme_code' in the example and notes to get it from search_mutual_funds, providing context. However, it does not describe the expected format (e.g., string of digits) beyond the example.

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 performs 'Deep analysis of a mutual fund' and lists specific outputs: returns, risk metrics, rolling returns, consistency score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_mutual_funds (search) and compare_mf_detailed (comparison).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use search_mutual_funds first to get the scheme code, guiding the correct workflow. Provides an example call. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives for similar analyses.

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