fund_conversion_ratios

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that response includes match_method, confidence, fuzzy_candidates, and match_warning, and instructs to relay these to the user. Explains fuzzy matching behavior and warning when similarity is low.

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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, but output schema exists, the description covers tool behavior well. Explains output fields and usage patterns without needing to replicate return value details.

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 should compensate. It mentions fund_name is key and mentions fuzzy matching, but does not explicitly describe filename, fund_col, or use_fuzzy_match parameters. Partial compensation leaves significant gaps.

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 returns conversion ratios between funding stages for a single named fund. It uses specific verbs like 'For a single named fund: conversion ratios' and distinguishes from siblings like portfolio_summary and fund_stage_totals.

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 states when to use (user asks about full funding pipeline, conversion ratios, efficiency, comparing ratios) and when not to use (portfolio-wide totals, raw stage amounts). Names alternatives: portfolio_summary, fund_stage_totals, fund_summary. Also advises to use search_funds first if unknown.

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