获取基金风险收益分析

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by identifying the data source (雪球基金), indicating this is a read/return operation, and disclosing a 24-hour cache. It does not discuss failure modes or permission requirements, but for a simple read-only retrieval these are minor gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs in the source, scope, time periods, metrics, and cache behavior without any filler. It is easy for an agent to parse the key facts immediately.

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 one-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the main returned metrics and the 1/3/5-year evaluation periods, which tells an agent what to expect. The trailing '等指标' leaves the field list slightly open-ended, so it is not a complete inventory of the response.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, including an example format ('000001(华夏成长)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 names a specific action ('返回'), a specific resource ('雪球基金-基金详情-数据分析'), and a precise set of risk-return metrics (annualized volatility, Sharpe ratio, max drawdown, peer-relative risk-return) over 1/3/5-year horizons. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fund_nav, fund_holdings, and fund_info.

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 metric list and fund-analysis framing imply when to use the tool: when a user asks for fund risk/return statistics such as volatility, Sharpe, or drawdown. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternative sibling tools, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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