get_fund_code_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the scope ('全部' = all) and scale ('26000+'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, potential pagination, or size implications. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no-parameter list retrieval tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and its scale. It does not describe the exact return structure, but since there is no output schema and the name implies a list of codes, the description is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists to describe, which is appropriate.

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 '获取全部基金代码列表' clearly states the action (get all fund codes) and the resource (fund code list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_a_share_code_list or get_hk_code_list. It also provides a specific count (26000+ 只), which adds specificity and scope.

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 usage: this tool is for retrieving the full list of fund codes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., stock or HK code lists), nor does it state any exclusions. The usage is self-evident from the name and description, but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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