track_fund_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions detecting signals but does not describe the return format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not summarized, leaving the agent uninformed about response structure.

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 clear sentences plus an Args block. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Efficient for the information conveyed, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from args).

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 an output schema exists but is not described, the description is adequate for simple parameters. However, it lacks information on what the returned signals look like, pagination, or error handling. For a pattern-detection tool, more detail on the output would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description's Args section adds meaning: company_name accepts a name or 6-digit stock code, lookback_years range 1-5 with default 3. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though additional constraints (e.g., format of stock code) could be added.

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 the tool queries fund usage (plan vs actual) to detect misuse signals, specifically for zombie_ma/fake_new_biz patterns. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning these specific fraud patterns, though could be more explicit about when to use over alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like check_disclosure_risk or find_risk_precedents. The description implies diagnostic use for fund misuse but lacks prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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