search_mutual_funds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'real-time' and 'live API endpoint' as useful context, but it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation. The non-mutating nature of 'search' is implied, but additional details would strengthen transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff and earns its place by conveying both the resource and the live-data characteristic.

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 complexity (10 parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain the return format or pagination behavior, though these are partially evident from the schema. For a search tool, the response is likely a list of funds, but this is not explicitly stated. Overall, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers semantics. 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 'Search and filter mutual funds in real-time using Groww's live API endpoint' clearly states the action (search and filter), the resource (mutual funds), and the specific context (real-time via Groww's live API). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'fetch_mutual_fund_details' by emphasizing search/filter over detail retrieval.

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 for finding and filtering mutual funds but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'fetch_mutual_fund_details'. It lacks direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions, though the purpose is inferable.

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