get_equity_scheme_performance

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool gets performance but does not disclose whether it returns a single value or list, or the data source. It implies read-only behavior, which is safe, but lacks explicit detail on scope or 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function.

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?

Without an output schema or parameters, the description is minimal. It explains the basic purpose but omits details like whether returns are for a specific scheme or a list, or the format of the output (e.g., percentages). For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter detail. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description reinforces the tool's purpose but adds no parameter-level nuance.

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 retrieves equity mutual fund performance with specific time horizons (1Y, 3Y, 5Y). It distinguishes from siblings like get_mf_nav (NAV) and get_mf_history (historical), which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_mutual_funds, analyze_mutual_fund). It does not mention any prerequisites or context, such as requiring a scheme selection.

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