search_mutual_funds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the data source ('47,000+ AMFI schemes') and the search criterion ('by name'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention what information is returned (e.g., scheme code, NAV) or any behavioral traits like partial matching or case sensitivity.

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 communicates the core functionality without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does and the scope. However, it would benefit from briefly stating the return format (list of schemes) to complete the mental model.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds no detail about the 'query' parameter beyond the schema. The description only says 'by name', which loosely implies the query usage, but does not specify format, constraints, or possible values. For a single parameter, this is insufficient.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'mutual funds', and the scope 'by name across 47,000+ AMFI schemes'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mf_nav or compare_mutual_funds, 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?

The description implies this tool is for finding mutual funds by name, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as search_stocks or compare_mutual_funds. No exclusions or contexts are mentioned.

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