getFundCountryAllocation

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already communicate safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output provides percentage allocations by country, which is not in annotations. No contradiction detected.

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?

Three sentences: the first clearly states purpose, the second elaborates on the output, and the third is somewhat redundant ('helping you make informed investment decisions'). Could be slightly tighter but overall efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. While the description conveys the general purpose and output type (percentage allocations), it lacks details on the return format (e.g., array of country objects, data types). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a single 'symbol' parameter described as 'Fund symbol'. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves country allocation data for ETFs and mutual funds, using specific verbs ('Gain insight' implies retrieval) and specifies the resource. It differentiates from siblings like getFundSectorWeighting and getFundHoldings by mentioning countries and percentage of assets.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFundSectorWeighting or getFundHoldings. The description lacks context for when this is the appropriate tool and provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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