get_offshore_fund_nav

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns the latest NAV, supports partial match filtering, and returns a limited result set (first 50). This is sufficient for a read-only query tool.

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 concise sentences: purpose with context, return value description, and usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it returns (latest NAV), how to filter, default behavior (first 50). No gaps identified.

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 100% and both parameters (fund_code, fund_name) have descriptions noting partial match support. The description adds no new details beyond restating that these parameters are for filtering, so it meets the baseline without additional value.

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 'Query' and precisely identifies the resource 'TDCC offshore fund net asset values'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_director_shareholding or get_securities_info, which cover entirely different data domains.

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?

The description states that fund_code or fund_name can be used for filtering and mentions a default limit of 50 results when no filter is given. While it lacks explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance, the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes this less critical.

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