获取基金基本信息

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only intent via '获取' and lists returned content, but it does not disclose error behavior, data source, completeness, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic lookup nature.

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 one compact sentence that states the verb, resource, and key output fields immediately. No filler or redundant wording detracts from the message.

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 one-parameter lookup, the description is adequate: it names the resource and several output fields. However, with no output schema, it does not fully specify the return structure or edge cases such as invalid fund codes, which leaves some uncertainty.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'code' is well documented with an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool gets basic fund information and lists specific fields (name, type, scale, manager), which distinguishes it from siblings like fund_nav or fund_holdings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by naming them or contrasting scopes.

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 use when basic fund information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as fund_nav, fund_holdings, or fund_analysis. There are no exclusions or conditions stated.

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