fetch_mutual_fund_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only fetch operation and the required search_id, but it does not disclose what 'in-depth details' includes, potential errors, or any behavior beyond the basic retrieval.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Fetch in-depth details') and specifies the required input. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information.

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 retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'in-depth details' means or how the output relates to the sibling search tool, but the schema covers the parameter and the operation is clear enough for basic use.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter with a clear description and example (e.g., 'axis-silver-fof-regular-growth'). The description's mention of 'search_id' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fetches in-depth details for a specific mutual fund scheme using a search_id. This distinguishes it from the sibling search_mutual_funds, which presumably returns a list of funds, by focusing on retrieving details for one identified fund.

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?

Usage is implied: one would first search mutual funds to obtain a search_id, then call this tool for details. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over search_mutual_funds or provide any usage exclusions.

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