compare_mf_detailed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output dimensions (returns, risk, rolling returns, SIP performance, consistency score) and implies a read-only, non-destructive comparison, but lacks details on whether it modifies data or has side effects.

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 purpose, no wasted words. The example adds clarity without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists key output categories and includes an example, making it mostly complete. Could be enhanced by mentioning expected output format (e.g., table or JSON).

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 provides an example showing array of scheme codes, but does not explain what scheme codes are or how to obtain them, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('multiple mutual funds') with detailed aspects (returns, risk, rolling returns, SIP performance, consistency score), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'compare_mutual_funds' by emphasizing depth.

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 provides a clear use case ('which fund should I choose') and an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'compare_mutual_funds'.

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