问财选基金经理（同花顺问财）

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that data comes from 同花顺问财 and that the operation is a screening/selection task, which implies a read-only query behavior. However, it does not describe the return shape, possible latency, external dependency risks, or any limitations.

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 two tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the essential data-source context. There is no redundant wording or repetition of the title or parameter names.

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 select-style tool, the description covers purpose and data source, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of manager names, detailed profiles, or rankings) or how to interpret failures. This leaves a meaningful gap in completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the semantic dimensions that should be encoded in the natural-language query (historical performance, management scale, investment style, risk control), which helps the agent construct a better query parameter. It does not explain page/limit, but those are already described in the schema.

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's action ('筛选公募基金经理') and its filtering dimensions (historical performance, management scale, investment style, risk control). It is distinct from sibling tools like select_fund and select_fundcompany because it names '基金经理' as the target resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 context: use this tool when the user wants to screen public fund managers by various qualitative and quantitative criteria. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as select_fund or query_fund_data, nor any exclusion criteria.

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