fund_summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only covers output contents. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or any side effects. The behavioral traits are not addressed beyond what can be inferred.

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?

The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds context in the second. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return structure, but it lists key components. It lacks prerequisites, error conditions, or examples. For a simple one-parameter tool with a composite output, the description is nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies that 'fund_id' identifies the fund. It does not explain the parameter's format, range, or any constraints beyond the schema's 'integer' type. The description compensates only minimally for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 produces a 'structured profile card' including metadata, four stage metrics, portfolio share, and conversion ratios. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it combines two separate functions (B's fund_summary and A's fund_conversion_ratios).

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 implies its use when both fund summary and conversion ratios are needed together, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_fund_details' or 'fund_conversion_ratios'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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