get_fund_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool returns a 'full dataset record,' which implies a read operation with no side effects, but does not elaborate on the exact return structure, error handling, or any constraints. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core purpose.

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 long and immediately states the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is well-structured for quick 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 tool's low complexity (single required parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description is adequately complete. It informs the agent about the required input, the prerequisite (need an ID), and directs to an alternative for name-based queries. It does not mention error cases or performance, but these are implicit in read operations.

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 adds semantic meaning by specifying that the fund_id parameter should be an integer identifier, not a name, and that the tool requires an ID. However, it does not provide details on the format, range, or validation of the ID, so the compensation is partial.

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 a full dataset record for a single fund by fund_id. It specifies the resource (fund) and identifier (fund_id), and distinguishes it from siblings like fund_summary and search_funds by noting that resolve_entity should be used when only the fund name is available.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use resolve_entity first if you only have a fund name, not an ID.' This tells the agent when to avoid this tool and which alternative to use, which is excellent for decision-making.

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