Search funds

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world. The description adds behavioral nuance: it clarifies that the tool returns registry metadata only, and that passing fund_id switches to a detail record. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion of prices/returns is delivered as a concise clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential distinctions (list vs. detail, registry vs. pricing). It doesn't explain pagination or fund_class semantics, but those are either self-evident or defined in the schema. Overall, an agent can call this correctly with the given information.

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 coverage is 57% – moderate. Several parameters (query, fund_id, fund_type, fund_state) have descriptions, but limit, offset, and fund_class do not. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter, but the mention of 'type, class, state' hints at what fund_type and fund_class filter on. This adds a little context but does not fully compensate for the gaps.

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 searches investment funds registered on KAP, lists the key fields (identity, type, class, state, founder, KAP URL), and distinguishes the list vs. detail behavior via fund_id. It also explicitly excludes prices/returns, which disambiguates it from price-focused sibling tools.

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 gives a clear context (registry data) and an implicit exclusion (prices/returns not here), which steers the agent away from using this tool for financial data. However, it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., get_quote, get_price_history), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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